BS: Popular views on McCain

Subject: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM

http://www.madcowprod.com/02272008.html


With friends like these Lobbists who needs enemas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:16 PM

Donuel - It looks to me like the entire country could use an enema. You got to wonder what would come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

WaPo Columnist:

"...So Obama needs to start thinking about how he will actually implement his vision and better understand the military mindset and the realities for a uniformed leadership that now has its own stake in succeeding in Iraq. Obama needs to redefine the American mission and decouple what Americans should do in Iraq with what America must do against terrorism -- and he needs to embrace the surge.

McCain? Haunted by Vietnam, he raises the specter of al Qaeda "taking" Iraq. A few hundred or thousand terrorists that the U.S. military itself says are practically defeated in the country? McCain is stuck in a false conception -- and an irresponsible scare tactic -- that an attack at home will certainly come if we back off one inch from Baghdad.

McCain pledges to keep U.S. forces in Iraq, and favors adding more troops if necessary. Put aside for a moment the unreality of that plan given how stretched and broken the military itself claims it is. Put aside as well whether McCain hasn't cleverly seized upon the core American dichotomy of hating the Iraq war but hating defeat even more.

The McCain fallacy on Iraq is the suggestion -- his belief -- that old-style, pre-surge "victory" is still possible. Because the Army and Marine Corps are indeed "winning" under the surge, he says it has been successful in changing the political reality in Iraq, and that the non-military needs are now catching up with the military. Here McCain is the naïve one about what the surge was all about and what it has undeniably achieved: Not victory, but change in the terms of the debate to facilitate an honorable American end to the war.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:33 AM

I think he has enough to answer for with those oven chips.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: kendall
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:45 AM

He's a military man. They have to find or create wars to justify their existance.
He, among others, say if we dont fight themover there, we will have to fight them here. Ok, so how come these people didn't follow us home?
Mexico
Spain
Germany
Japan
Korea
Viet Nam
Granada
Panama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

Now, Kendall - you know Reginslinger will be here in five minutes to tell us all that they did follow us home!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 10:39 AM

I don't know how 'popular' my view of McCain is, and don't give a rip. I think that if the main issue driving voters come November is the war, McCain will win, possibly by a significant margin.

If the economy is the main issue in November, the Democrat will win, whether it is Obama or Clinton it won't matter.

What will matter but most voters won't think about regardless of where we are at with the war, is where any of the candidates will lead us in terms of 'the next battleground'. Because there will be one, whether the charge is led by President Obama, President Clinton, or President McCain, because they are all stickin' with the empire.

Obama seems really ignorant of the issues tied up in the US empire building and US militarism, and that really scares me.

If he would say 'impeachment should be on the table' or that he will go after the crooks in the Pentagon and Defense Dept. I could get on board with him. It is that simple, to win my vote. THAT would be an authentic paradigm shift.

Both McCain and Obama are sitting pretty in their respective parties thanks to fed up w/partisan bullshit independents, NOT their party loyalists. Whether that turns out to be an anomaly this year, and the partisanship machines kick into high gear to kill the independent voter movement beast, we'll see in the post-November era.

But it is no accident that the two candidates with the greatest appeal to independent, rather than partisan voters, is winning this year.

Independent voters were really turned off by the anti-indie/pro-partisan vitriol of 2004, especially when it blew up in the Democrats faces with their loser Kerry--an incredibly AWFUL born with a silver foot in his mouth candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM

"Now, Kendall - you know Reginslinger will be here in five minutes to tell us all that they did follow us home!"


                   The way I remember it, the ones who didn't follow us home from Vietnam were labeled "Boat People" by the media.

                   As far as Granada goes, there was hardly anybody there to follow us home in the first place. That's the way Reagan liked to fight wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:55 AM

Frank Rich does a good job of exploring John McCain's inner Hillary.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:15 AM

There is no one in the world who would ever dream of attacking the USA if the USA and its big corporations would just leave the other people in the world alone!

That is what Mr McCain will apparently never be able to figure out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:19 AM

Or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama either. They're all stickin' w/the empire.

And why not? It's good to be the king.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:30 AM

Well, if y'all like the last 8 years then vote for McCain... There is nho substanial difference between what Bush is doing now in terms of foriegn or domestic policies than what McWar is proposing... More tax cuts for the wealthy meaning big deficits and more costly war...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:46 AM

Canadians should strongly support MCain and his endorsement of NAFTA agreements with Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:53 AM

Why was my last post just deleted?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM

question- did you actually SEE it in the thread? Jeri says nothing has been deleted, and she generally knows. Sometimes posts just dont take.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:51 PM

Every candidate has to start with the ground truth as it exists when he begins his plans, as well as he can ascertain it. What you call "empire" -- although it is commercial dominance more than traditional empire -- is part of the ground truth. But it is also true that the world is flattening out to a greater degree than ever before, with China, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, some parts of Africa, Japan, Korea, and Thailand all roaring to deliver goods to the US and Europe that were once miracle exports from the US and Europe.

The vacuum which we have balked at filling is the breakthrough innovational trajectory of new and better ways and products and systems. We have such deeply invested corporate dampers on our market that the cost of true innovation is almost stifling. Henry Ford could never do what he did, in today's legal and commercial environment; neither could Singer, or Maytag, who at one time peopled the planet with their manufactured devices, just for examples.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM

Look, I wouldn't have asked in a completely different thread, if I wasn't pretty certain I had seen it post.

Here is, in part, Mick's response in that thread, confirming that my posts have been deleted for spurious reasons on a whim by one of the mods:

"You have recently had, as you well know, several posts reinstated that met the rules. Those reinstatements came with an explanation that restated the rules, which you quoted above."

Yeah, which begs the question, why were those posts deleted to begin with, if the posts were in full compliance with the rules?

I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer on that one.

Which is why I immediately suspected the same foul play.

I am willing to split the difference on this one today (and what other choice do we have anyway?), and say that it was a question of the post not making it through.

But the censorship is happening. I'm not the only one it has happened to, so there is apparently at least one moderator of this forum who is a bit trigger happy with either certain posters, or with certain content.

I don't expect we will ever hear the truth of it. "Homeland security" you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

Ya know, Janet, just when I think we might have turned the corner and could get on with just good, solid, often controversial, but useful discussion, you come up with this, taking part of the quote and using to suit your own context. I think you must be showing your stripes here. Careful, your motivations are showing. You are convincing me that your real goal is disruption and that you take delight in that. Fair enough, but it won't be tolerated here. Your political insights are often hard edged, but provoke solid debate and thought. But when you start tearing the place down, and taking shots at folks that are attempting to keep it on a unique and even keel, and devoting their personal time to doing so, you are getting into turf that will give credence to those that just want to ban you.

So I will say this one last time. Stop attacking this place and the folks that are willing to give of their time to provide you an outlet. Websites like this one are not democracies, but this one allows a lot of latitude. It is not your right to do/say whatever you want here, but we give you more space than most. As long as you stay within guidelines, you will be allowed to post. Use a consistent handle, no personal attacks, and trolling for the purpose of disruption of the free flow of discussion won't be allowed. I can't speak for most of the mod's but I can tell you that I don't give a rats behind if you like the way we run it. If it's not to your liking, don't let the cyber door hit you in your cyber arse on the way out.

Now I would hope you would get back to the discussion of McCain. It is a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 03:09 PM

I quoted what was relevant to my reasons for questioning what had happened *again* to my post.

I was able to track back the post, as I wrote it, on my computer. But because I wasn't able to get back to a screen that showed it posted, I gave Mudcat the benefit of the doubt, and accepted there was a chance that the post didn't get through. However, as you well know Mick, I have good reason to be suspicious.

This is a problem of Mudcat's making, not mine, and I am certainly not the first person in recent weeks to complain of it happening.

You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you like about my motivations. But it is my actions, not your second guesses about my motivations, that count here.

I tore no one down. I stated facts, and they were facts you yourself had to agree with, and I am willing drop it so long as nobody jerks my chain for their vindictive jollies.

I get that this is a one way street sort of forum. But it's one of your own heading the wrong way down that street, not me. I have been following the rules. One of the mods hasn't been. Only you mods know who that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:34 AM

Keating 5.

please don't bring this up regarding McCain.

The bail out he helped get for the legislation to pay for (with tax dollars) all the money that was stolen via prior legislation to legalize stealing money by a priveliged few, should not be held against John McCain.

He was just obeying suggestions and racking in cash.

regarding Viet Nam...

McCain slew Ablely.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

"Slew Ably?" All due respect, McCain got shot down and spent most of the war as a prisoner.

Now, I don't for one minute believe that his misfortune had anything to do with his relative competance as a warrior or, more specifically, as a pilot. Just dumb, bad, luck. Also, his unfortunate experience and his ability to survive through it speak well for him as a human person, and make him a credible opponent of the Bush administration's desire to legitimize torture.

There were plenty of GIs, many of them reluctant conscripts, who slew many more Vietnamese persons more ably than did John McCain. You can find some of them living under overpasses in every American city. Or perhaps you'd like to meet my friend Jane, who as a 17-year-old high school dropout earned a battlefield commission while racking up a record of 28 "personal kills" in Vietnam. Back then, of course, Jane was Eugene; (s)he is going through gender change at age 60 because, as a male, he was simply too screwed up, too mean and angry, to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

Veterans who have 'slipped through the cracks' have been in the gutters after each of our wars. I remember the 'bush vets,' so-called, living in solitary hideouts in Hawaii after the Vietnam War, too traumatized ever to return to society. No one wanted to talk about them. In California, too, living rough. I have often wondered what eventually happened to them.

I always thought obscene the intensive American search for information on the few missing American MIA's when Vietnamese were looking for the hundreds of thousands of their own destroyed in that useless war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM

As a Canadian, I would never hope for a win by McCain who has accepted an endorsement from John Hagee, the Texas evangelist.

Hagee hates the Catholic church, Jews, women, and Muslims, etc. He makes his living hating others.

Hagee supports McCain and McCain supports NAFTA.

Kinda makes you wonder or in Q's case, not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:21 PM

McCains hard times have left him with a heavy case of scar tissue in point of view. He is jaded and looks at the world in a gimlet-eyed military man's manner, assessing all people as potential hostiles first, and pawns second.

We have a better model for looking at humanity at large.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:29 PM

Well, not to mention that the guy is butt ugly...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:50 PM

yer, right, Bobert. I'm not worried too much about the double-chin but its the lifeless eyes that bother me the most. I can't determine if he is full of fear, hatred or regret. None of which will make him a good President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM

Gee, Dianavan, as long as his policies are good for Canada, those evangelistas down there don't make no never mind.
When you visit the States, just put a bobble-head Jesus peeking through the windshield of your car and they won't bother you.

Saw Hagee on TV the other night. He looks mighty well-fed. Those Texans must put real money in his begging bowl. Apparently the biggest amount of his cash rolled in during Bill Clinton's presidency. He built a plush little 500 bed resort in the Hill Country of Texas at the time. Just the place to walk your "I love Jesus" Reboks.

Apparently he is something of a whirligig. A couple of years ago he was in Washington with 3000 of his followers demanding that the Bush regime show stronger support for Israel. I have never heard his pitches, but if he now is downing the Jews, that is a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:38 PM

"Just a Closer Walk with Thee," in Reboks?


                His position on Jews is probably dictated by which position is bringing in the most money at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: kendall
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:59 PM

McCain vowed to "Get Bin Laden". Where have we heard that one before?
How many days since, Mission accomplished?
4 more years..............not with my help.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 11:08 PM

From Howard Dean:

....Here's the background on the situation.


A few months ago, John McCain applied for and was approved to receive federal matching funds. Because he couldn't find enough people to fund his campaign, he was also forced to apply for a $4 million line of credit, which he secured by using the federal matching funds as collateral.


By taking the federal funding, he agreed to spend no more than $57 million until the Republican convention. But so far, his campaign has spent at least $49 million -- leaving him with less than $10 million to campaign with through September.


Now that he's won the nomination and has the support of the Republican lobbyist and special interest machine, he's trying to ignore that the whole thing ever happened. He recently wrote a letter to the FEC telling them that he was backing out, even though the FEC is very clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be approved; you can't just change your mind and take it back -- legally, you have to be given permission.


McCain isn't asking because he knows he'll never be granted permission, and he doesn't want to have to accept the funding restrictions he agreed to when he used the money as collateral for a loan. He's ripping a page right from George Bush's playbook: ignoring the laws when they aren't convenient and hoping no one will notice.


Stand up and show him that hundreds of thousands of people have noticed -- he can't change the rules in the middle of the game because he doesn't like how things are going for him:


http://www.democrats.org/McCainBusted


Using government programs when it's politically convenient and breaking the rules when it's not ... remind you of anyone?


Just like George Bush, John McCain thinks he's above the law. McCain poses as a reformer, but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him.


Time to send him a message.


Howard Dean



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:02 AM

Frankly, I don't see why he doesn't just go along with it. He's already clinched the nomination, and the 527 groups would be happy to pick up the slack.

                  If he did that, he could hammer Obama, assuming the Democratic nominee is Obama, over the head all through the general election for reneging on his pledge to use public financing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:26 AM

Yeah, I think it would give him moral high ground against the Shiny and New Brand Name.

Clinton came from behind this week being outspent by Obama 2 to 1. Which is why I think Obama has peaked too early to win the general.

He can't even buy his way to victory. And isn't that a sad state of affairs?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM

Any organism can be poisoned by toxins, especially relatively young ones.

Let us see, though. I think hard predictions are a bit presumptuous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM

Anybody who'd make a hard prediction on this one isn't dealing with reality, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:30 AM

Seven come eleven.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM

From commentary in the Times on an analysis of various health-care positions of the several candidates:

"McCain's postion is ironically ludicrious.

(1) Due to his injuries in Vietnam, he has been entitled to care through the VA ever since.

The VA is government-run healthcare.

(2) As a US Senator, he recieves government-paid health insurance and care.

(3) As someone over 65, he is elgible for Medicare and should be enrolled in Parts A and B at least under Medicare's rule.

Medicare is government-administered health insurance.

(4) Given Senator McCain's history of health problems. if he went to purchase a non-group health insurance plan, he would be unable to do so in around 45-46 states. Those states allow insurers to reject applicants because of pre-existing conditions, age and a host of other reasons.

He has had government-run care, government-paid insurance and/or government-adminstered insurance with little or nothing in the way of deductibles or caopys basically his entire adult life. But he is enough of a hypocrite to announce that the rest of us should fend for ourselves against the sharks of the private health insurance market.

His hypocrisy on the subject leaves one a bit queasy. ..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:04 PM

The way I've heard it described, he'd be rejected by Obama's health care plan as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:25 PM

Well, I think Obama's health plan does disallow certain, specifically identified, prior conditions, including:

Rampant militarism
Hypocrisy in the public service
Trenchant running of the mouth
Loss of primary functional compassion

and a few others. On a case by case basis...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM

That's the problem. In order for health care to work, it has to cover everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: DougR
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM

Why don't all you Mudcatters who can vote(legally)write in Kendall on your ballot? I think Kendall and Bobert would make good P&VP candidates. They could run on the theme, "more federal dollars for folk music!" Probably win in a landslide.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 06:32 PM

Pithy & erudite as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM

As a senator, he has the right to purchase the same health insurance that any other Federal employee can get. At the present time, the employee share of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, high option, family plan is $314.47 per month. They are the second payer after Medicare, which he would also pay for. I have no idea if he has any service-connected disabilities, which are required to qualify him for VA health care at his income level.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:43 AM

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:


"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

---

This is great. While John Boy is not, at least, talking to God through his hair-dryer, he's got the next best thing--a loose nut-- to serve as a medium to the cartoon channel.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM

Parsley has many megabucks personally and his congregation both locally and on TV has very deep pockets. From an influence standpoint he is probably the current leader of the pack......Very scary. The physical plant of his church and school is pretty significant btw........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:00 AM

It's the ignorance that gets me. This crap about "our nation's divine purpose" is exactly the kind of blind-pig chauvinism that has started wars over and over. Why doesn't this allegedly educated human being know that? How can he stomach himself, knowing that he is literally shopping for slaughter, promoting hatred, and planning to bring about ruination to thousands of human beings? Who the fuck does he think he is, to commit such humanitarian crimes with impunity?

Gawd, the arrogance. I've been called arrogant, but he makes me look like a farm boy and a piker in comparison.   It is to puke.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:24 PM

And I thought Parsley was a leafy vegetable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Stranger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:36 PM

McCain will easily win. The small minority in this country who thinks like the vast majority on Mudcat will never go along with Obama's extremist liberal views. That, and and there are more moderate Democrats than you realize.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:24 PM

Small minority?

You aren't paying attention, Stranger.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Stranger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:42 PM

We are a long way from the election, Amos.

Wait until the Rezko trial really kicks in. And people see and hear more and more of Obama's racist minister from Chicago. Don't forget Rev Al and Rev Jesse. They will be very much in the picture when it is all said and done. They are far from being ready and their egos are way too large to be dethroned in their "positions." All of this will alienate much more than you realize. Couple that with ordinary bigotry, racism, shallow experience, disenchanted Hillary supporters, moderate Democrats.

Remember how right you were about Kerry, also. Remember him? No one else does.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:48 PM

You have a point, Stranger. The Hillary campaign is not willing to launch the hard punches that the Republicans will gleefully throw. In the end, I think the Democrats would be much better off with Hillary.
                      But, as I'm sure you've noticed from recent events, every time the Hillary campaign takes a jab at Obama, they're labeled as RACIST by the corporate media, and that's the end of the digalogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM

As far as I am concerned, Kerry was a decent guy who had his belly ripped open, politically, by hyenas. I think the way that election went was a disgrace to thinking Americans and a shame in the eyes of the world. But, ya know, that;s just me.

Now, the thing about that campaign is the Dems had their eyes opened as to what hydrophobic jackals look like and what they will do; so I expect, after the bizarre media-slandering they wreaked on Kerry and Dean, that the Democratic party will be somewhat prepared. Whether Obama has learned from that history, remains to be seen; especially since his whole platform is centered on decency and thoughtfulness.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 04:17 AM

Personally, I prefer his crinkle-cuts best - the straight ones just don't seem to cook as nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:52 PM

"As far as I am concerned, Kerry was a decent guy who had his belly ripped open... by hyenas."


                  I agree. What happened to Kerry was terrible, but the people who did it still run the country and they haven't gone away. As soon as the Democrats decide on a candidate, they'll be right back out there with those despicable swiftboat people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM

For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's background, there are some important things you won't learn about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted positive image relies on people not knowing this stuffÑand you might be surprised by some of it.

Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We can't rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCainÑbut if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.

Click here to tell us how many people you can pass it on toÑand to see our progress nationally:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccain10/?id=12407-137503-O8bjk2&t=231
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan saysMcCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0Ñyes, zeroÑfrom the League of Conservation Voters last year.10


Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council¨ Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

(From MoveOn)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 06:32 PM

One of the disadvantages of having clinched the nomination ahead of the still fighting Democrats is, it gives 572 groups like MoveOn.org time to research the talking points of their attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 10:12 AM

please tell me isn't true......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:44 AM

NYT Editorial:

"Senator John McCainÕs speech on taxes last week was widely seen as a stay-the-Bush-course pledge. Not true. Mr. McCain would dig a much deeper hole than even President Bush, exactly what the country does not need. Mr. Bush is already bequeathing his successor a government deep in debt, ill prepared to meet foreseeable challenges Ñ health care, road and bridge repair, alternative energy Ñ let alone emergencies.

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain has reversed his earlier passionate Ñ and correct Ñ opposition to the Bush tax cuts. He now calls for permanently extending them. He also proposes to repeal the alternative minimum tax. Those two proposals alone would reduce tax revenue by $1 trillion over four years.

His speech did not stop there. He proposed doubling the dependent exemption, to $7,000 per child, cutting revenue by $171 billion more over four years. He said the increase was needed to keep up with inflation, but the exemption has been adjusted for inflation every year since 1982. Then thereÕs his idea to suspend the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. That would cost the highway trust fund $10 billion.

Mr. McCainÕs other big proposals Ñ to cut the corporate tax and make the credit for research and development permanent Ñ are fatally flawed by the fact that he offers no feasible way to pay for them. We do not doubt that Mr. McCain would try harder than Mr. Bush to cut spending. But his claim that he would offset hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax cuts by closing loopholes and cutting pork is just not credible. Pork spending, or earmarks, come to some $18 billion a year.

Mr. McCain has admitted that he does not know a lot about economics. But he should have no trouble recognizing political pandering, which is the only explanation for many of his proposals. To be taken seriously, he needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that shows how he would govern without adding to the fiscal damage of the past eight years...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 08:49 AM

What interests me is that in the UK, Ming Campbell,the leader of one of our political parties ( the Liberal Democrates ), was hounded out of office because he was condsidered, at 66 years, to be too old for the job!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 10:12 PM

Ronald Reagan was to old to realize he was even in the job, but the Republicans loved him and he slept through 8 years in office. Every time somebody woke him up to sign something, it made the lives of ordinary Americans worse than the thing they woke him up to sign before.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 07:48 PM

McCain is doing his part to stick to the shock jock radio talking points. "No one knows who Obama is!!!!!!"
(simulated AM talk radio...
Thats right, he just might be binLaden in a suit. No one knows. There are no fellow soldiers who remember him, there are no DAR who remember him, for all we know he has a FAKE Social Security card and a few fake family photos.

Has anyone seen his mom or grandmom? Father?

Yeah they say he was born under a shining star in the East -- the MIDDLE EAST or the mid west? NO one knows for sure. All I know is that he crawled from underneath a rock.

Ladies and gentlemen this Obama character could in fact be an alien and the whacko liberals act as if he is the son of God.

After his behavior in the Senate when he overturned the tables of the money lender lobbists, you can be sure that he is out to dman America.

The FBI ran a security check on this guy's identity and they found that he had tried to disfigure his prints with a scared hole on each palm. What is he tryiing to hide. I'll tell you what, he is hiding that he wants to destroy America by spending our treasure on useless efforts to stop what this country was founded on____WAR!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:01 PM

"Right-wing pastor John Hagee says Katrina was New Orleans' fault. John McCain sought out, and embraces, Hagee's support. MoveOn members are trying to deliver a petition to McCain in New Orleans just a few hours from now: will you sign?

Here's the background: McCain wants America to see him as a compassionate, mainstream politician. So he's going to New Orleans today for a photo-op in the 9th Ward.

But he's still trying to shore up his right-wing baseÑso this past Sunday, he again welcomed the support of right-wing evangelist John Hagee, who said "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."1

MoveOn members in New Orleans have organized an emergency rally outside McCain's event today. With the media looking on, they'll try to deliver our petition asking him to stop pandering to right-wing bigots like Hagee. They'll announce an up-to-the-minute number of signatures, and we'll have a real impact if we can say that hundreds of thousands have signed in only a few hours. Clicking here will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccain_pander/o.pl?id=12500-137503-jT1Pd_&t=3

The petition reads: "John Hagee continues to blame the people of New Orleans for the catastrophe of Katrina. Senator McCain: If you reject intolerance and bigotry, reject Hagee's political support and stop courting hate-mongers like him."

This is not a gaffe or a "gotcha." Hagee has a history of bigoted comments and he stood by his New Orleans remarks just days ago.2 And McCain's strategy is intentionalÑhe's been working hard to court far-right leaders like Jerry Falwell and John Hagee, despite their hateful views.3 Even when he was pressed about Hagee's hateful views, McCain said he was "glad to have his endorsement."4

Hagee's words matter. Katrina was a terrible reminder of the consequences of bigotry and exclusion. People without resources, without political power, literally sank beneath the waves while our government did nothing.

John McCain is relying for political support on a man who preaches bigotry and exclusion, who spreads the kind of hate that allowed Katrina to become a man-made tragedy. While the media is focused on his New Orleans visit, we need to call him on it.

The more folks who sign the petition in the next few hours, the greater our impact. Clicking here will add your name right now:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccain_pander/o.pl?id=12500-137503-jT1Pd_&t=4

We need to let Senator McCain know that he can't use New Orleans for a photo-op while still courting the political support of hate-mongers like Hagee. New Orleans deserves better and America does, too."


(Move On)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 09:14 PM

On another thread some poster tried to make the point that Moveon.org didn't have anything to do with the promotion of Obama.

                     But I would agree, McCain's pandering to these right-wing buffoons should cost him a lot of independant votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: heric
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:24 AM

McCain is all over the front pages saying that the Katrina response was mismanaged. Now there's going out on a limb . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:39 AM

Don't be a jackass Riginslinger. You said that Moveon was raising money for Obama. I said they were raising it for themselves. They are a 527. They are not allowed to work with his campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:16 AM

Okay, Jack, what I meant to say--if we want to be perfectly accurate--is they are one of the moving forces behind all of the contributions to the Obama campaign. I didn't mean to imply they were actually gathering up money and sending it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:13 AM

McCain vs McCain

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 08:42 AM

... one of the moving forces behind all of the contributions to the Obama campaign...

That could be said of any group, organization or individual fed up with the Right-Wing Republican administration of the BuShites and/or the Moderate Republican - cloned administration of the Clintons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 03:51 PM

Storm in a Teacup? -- the small scandal over whether McCain actually voted for Bush, and maybe said some nasty things about him at a dinner party.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:22 PM

Now the bastard is saying women need more education and training in order to receive equal pay for equal work:

Senator John McCain opposed the Fair Pay Act—a bill that would help guarantee women equal pay for equal work. The bill simply would have restored critical anti-discrimination rules that the Supreme Court struck down in a recent decision, and failed by just three votes.

Adding insult to injury, McCain said that the solution to employment discrimination was for women to get more "education and training. Maybe that made some sense in his day, but today with women outnumbering men on college campuses, it makes none. Study after study has shown that women are paid less than men for the same work, even when they have the same education and training. Senator McCain and his Republican allies have chosen to stand in the way of enforcement of a law that's been on the books protecting women for 40 years.

He will be worse than Bush if he gets in. I don't trust him. I think he is unstable, a loose cannon, and would be more dangerous as he would actually be making decisions, himself, which could be worse than what Cheney has funnelled through the puppet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:40 PM

Our mind set is not cast in stone but there is a lot of carry over of ideas we had in our prime.

John's mindset is formed by his prime years in the 1950's and the horrors he endured in the 70's.

That may explain some of the things he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 08 - 02:51 PM

The proposition that Hamas favors Barack is irrational. Why would they? Because he had friends in the Muslim community? They no more represent the Muslim community (as they understand the notion) than Al Qeda represents Panamanian interests.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 08 - 04:50 PM

If Hamas endorses Obama, it will be used against him by his opponent, as we can see, and could effect his chances of getting elected. The result would be a President McCain. Anybody at all can see the reality of this, including Hamas themselves. What this tells us is that this is what they want to happen, which means that a McCain administration would play into the hands of Hamas and its agenda. Which, it seems to me, is about as obvious as anything could possibly be.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 08 - 05:01 PM

Could be that someone has quietly given Hamas some financial inducement to declare their support for Obama... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 08 - 05:22 PM

I am sure it could so be, but that does not mean it is.

Anyway, this is another one of those bass-ackward arguments. "Hamas likes Obama better" is seen as equivalent of saying "McCain would be a better President" without any further examination -- what a dull piece of illogical thought!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:06 PM

From MoveOn:

John McCain says he's a defender of democracy. But the folks running his campaign have been playing for the other team.

Two of John McCain's senior campaign staff were forced to resign this week after revelations that their lobbying firm was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent Burma's brutal military dictatorship.1

And it gets worseÑturns out this goes all the way to the top. Charlie Black, McCain's campaign chairman, ran a lobbying firm that represented brutal dictators like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko in ZaireÑalong with terrorist rebel Jonas Savimbi in Angola. Together, these men have been responsible for massive human suffering.2

And for good measure, Charlie Black has represented war profiteer Blackwater Worldwide and Iraqi fraudster Ahmed Chalabi.3

John McCain has a lobbyist problem, and we thought he could use your advice. What should Senator McCain do about his top adviser, Charlie Black? We'll release the results to the mediaÑand forward your advice to Senator McCain himself. And we're working on a hard-hitting web ad about Charlie Black that we'll release soon.

Click below to choose which message to send to John McCain:
Fire Black. Fire Charlie Black if he doesn't resign first.

Fire all the lobbyists. Fire Charlie Black, plus all 112 lobbyists running your campaign,4 including campaign co-chair Tom Loeffler, who has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a notorious human rights abuser.5

Don't sweat it. The media is so sold on your "maverick" image that corrupt figures in your inner circle won't actually hurt you.

Go all in. Hire more lobbyists who've worked for evil dictators. Maybe Kim Jong-il or Idi Amin.
Tell us what you think and spread the word! This survey's kind of funny, but our goal is deadly serious. If hundreds of thousands of us weigh in, we can show the media that John McCain's campaign has a growing liability: the fact that his inner circle is filled with lobbyists who've worked for everything he claims to be against.

Thanks for all you do.

ÐNoah, Karin, Ilyse, Peter, Justin, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
ÊÊTuesday, May 13th, 2008

P.S. McCain's campaign staff have too many connections to dictators to list in this email. It's unbelievable. But the non-partisan reform group Public Campaign Action Fund created a great fact sheet laying it all out:

http://www.firethelobbyists.com/facts.html

Sources:
1. "A Lobbying Firm and Its McCain Ties," MSNBC, May 12, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3654&id=12653-137503-cqHYTQ&t=5
2. "John McCain's Lobbyist Connections," Public Campaign Action Fund
http://www.firethelobbyists.com/facts.html

3. Ibid.

4. "McCain's Lobbyists in Trouble for Foreign Lobbying," Progressive Media USA, May 11, 2008
http://www.mccainsource.com/mccain_fact_check?id=0007

5. "McCain Aides Are Tied," New York Sun, May 12, 2008
http://www2.nysun.com/national/mccain-aides-are-tied/

"Obama Calls on Rice to Address Human Rights Violations in Saudi Arabia," November 19, 2007
http://obama.senate.gov/press/071119-obama_calls_on_21/

"Saudi Arabia," Human Rights Watch World Report, 2007
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/saudia14717.htm

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=12653-137503-cqHYTQ&t=6

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 08 - 06:16 PM

I wonder why the left out Joe Lieberman?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:19 AM

McCain: Iraq War Can Be Won By 2013
By Michael D. Shear

COLUMBUS,Ohio, MAY 15--Sen. John McCain will pledge this morning that the Iraq war can be won and most American troops can come home by 2013 if he is elected president, a position that closely resembles those of his potential Democratic rivals.

According to speech exerpts released in advance, McCain will say that only a small contingent of troops in non-combat roles would remain in Iraq five years from now. He predicts the drawdown will be possible because al Qaeda in Iraq will be defeated and a democratic government will be operating in the war-torn country.

In the excerpts, McCain describes in detail the "conditions I intend to achieve" by the time his first term in office ends. He says he will "focus all the powers of the office; every skill and strength I possess," to make that future a reality.

McCain until now has resisted offering a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops, saying that to do so would be tantamount to giving terrorists a timeline for defeat.

During the Florida primary, McCain blasted former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for what he said was support of a withdrawal timeline. Democrats, meanwhile, pilloried McCain for saying American troops could remain in Iraq for up to 100 years -- a reference McCain later likened to the presence of U.S. bases in Germany or South Korea.


Just last month, McCain said that "To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.''

But the speech he will give this morning envisions an America that, by 2013, "has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won."

By that time, the speech says, "the United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

Asked to make a similar pledge during a debate last September, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama declined, saying that "it's hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there."

But more recently, Obama has said he will remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president and will leave "some troops" in Iraq to protect U.S. embassy personnel there and carry out targeted strikes on terrorists.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said during the same debate last year that it was her "goal" to have all of the U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, though more recently she has said she would begin a phased withdrawal immediately.

McCain's advisers this morning sharply disputed any similarity between their candidate's goals for Iraq and the positions of Democrats. They said McCain's promise is to win the Iraq war by the end of his term while his rivals vow to begin pullouts regardless of the conditions in the country.

"There is no similarity," said McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.


In the speech, McCain also describes the America he hopes will exist after four years of his administration.

In that future America, he promises that taxes are lower, congressional earmarks are eliminated and robust economic growth has returned. He promises a new international "League of Democracies" that will have stopped the genocide in Darfur. He promises that construction will have begun on 20 new nuclear plants and that there will be a free-market plan to reduce greenhouse gasses. And he promises to have secured the country's southern border and offered a temporary worker program to illegal immigrants.

To accomplish those goals, McCain pledges cooperation with Democrats, saying that he will "listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse."

In the speech, McCain disavows "signing statements" often used by President Bush to alter the implementation of laws, saying that "I will not subvert the purpose of legislation I have signed by making statements that indicate I will enforce only the parts of it I like."

And McCain says he will ask Congress to hold regular Q & A sessions with him, much like the feisty exchanges that take place regularly between the British Prime Minister and members of the House of Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:09 AM

Ya know, Bruce, it might be more effective if you trimmed these pastes down tot he parts bearing on the point you were trying to make.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Amos,

1. The articles are not available shortly after they publication date.

2. IMO the logic and supporting information is important- Without it, one gets quick statements that will NOT stand alone- Such as the critisms of Obama short enough to fit on a bumper sticker.

Or the claim that McCain is Bush III or wants 100 years more war.


But if you just want unsupported sound bites, keep posting them from the NY Times...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:23 AM

'It should not be an extraordinary moment when a candidate for president declares allegiance to the Constitution, promises to not ignore or flagrantly violate laws, talks about ending a long and draining war and vows transparency in the Oval Office.

Such is the sorry state of affairs after seven years of Republican lawmakers' marching in mute lockstep with President Bush into one policy disaster after another. Senator John McCain scored some points on Thursday merely by acknowledging how much has to change.

Mr. McCain said in a speech that if elected, he will end the war in Iraq by the close of his first term; work in "concerted action" with other nations to counter the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea; and eliminate a tax meant for the rich that is crushing the upper-middle class. He promised to not "subvert the purpose of legislation," as Mr. Bush has done, with signing statements; and to not seek to create, as Mr. Bush has done, an imperial presidency accountable to no person or institution. "The powers of the presidency are rightly checked by the other branches of government," he said.

He also repeated his pledge to tackle climate change and promised to institute a temporary worker program and "deal humanely with the millions of immigrants who have been in this country illegally."

It has, of course, taken the threat of a Republican electoral disaster to inspire these promises, and there were troubling parts of Mr. McCain's speech, including his reaffirmation of an extreme right-wing approach to judicial nominations.

Still, we were gratified to hear Mr. McCain acknowledge the many abuses and failures of the Bush presidency and pledge to not repeat them. Now we need some sign that other powerful Republicans agree with their candidate — and we need to hear much more from him about how he will keep his promises.

Mr. McCain said he would achieve victory in Iraq by 2013, for instance, without a glimmer about how he would do it. The Democratic candidates know that the next president's task will be to extricate the United States from an unwinnable situation as cleanly as possible, not to hold out for an impossible final victory.

His promise to respect the constitutional balance between Congress and the White House raised questions, too. Is he willing to find and fix all the ways that Mr. Bush has undermined the Constitution and abridged civil liberties? Or is he just promising to do better?

Mr. McCain's record is not encouraging. His approval was critical to the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, one of the most damaging pieces of legislation in the nation's history. It created kangaroo courts at Guantánamo and suspended habeas corpus, a prisoner's fundamental right to a hearing in a real court.'

(NYT Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 02:52 PM

The Real McCain from Brave New Films.

ALternate path here


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:20 AM

Why would both McCain and top advisers to Obama endorse this allegedly radical idea? Let's let Lake answer: "One thing is clear," he wrote in the American Interest. "Crises in Iran, North Korea, Iraq and Darfur, not to mention the pressing need for more efficient peacekeeping operations, the rising temperatures of our seas and multiple other transnational threats, demonstrate not only the limits of American unilateral power but also the inability of international institutions designed in the middle of the 20th century to cope with the problems of the 21st."

In other words, a post-Cold War and post-George Bush United States will not have the capacity or the legitimacy to unilaterally take on global crises. But working through the United Nations, as Bush himself tried to do for the past several years, is more often than not a recipe for paralysis, because of the resistance of non-democratic states. Take the past few months: China, helped by Russia, has stopped the Security Council from discussing a humanitarian intervention to rescue the 1.5 million Burmese endangered by the criminal neglect of their government following a cyclone. Strong sanctions against Iran for its refusal to freeze its nuclear program have been blocked by Russia. An attempted U.N. intervention in Darfur is failing, largely because of Chinese and Russian refusal to authorize stronger measures against the government of Sudan.

Whether Obama or McCain, the next president will take office knowing that he inherits the messes in Darfur, Burma and Iran and also that new crises will erupt during his term. If he is unable to respond -- if he, like Bush, ends up watching as tens or hundreds of thousands of people die in a weak or failed state while China and Russia block U.N. action -- he will be harshly judged. That's why McCain has smartly begun to talk about his League of Democracies and promised early action to create it. If Obama is wise, he will make Daalder's Concert of Democracies part of his own campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/18/AR2008051801909.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:54 AM

Another League? Didn't we try that under Wilson?

Is it actually going to be a league of democracies? Or (as I suspect) more on the lines of a Bushoid PLanetary Posse of International Corporate Vigilantes?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:01 AM

Amos,

Look at the article before you comment- Obama seems to support it as well. Or at least his advisors ...




"Pundits and bloggers have seized on the proposal as proof that McCain, like George W. Bush before him, is in thrall to the "radical neocons" who allegedly authored the war in Iraq.

They couldn't be more wrong. In fact, a league of democracies is not a new but a very old idea. In the past decade it has been promoted mostly by Democrats, including several of Barack Obama's top foreign policy advisers. And as the dramatic events in places such as Burma and Zimbabwe have demonstrated in recent weeks, it's not a utopian plan but a practical tool that the next president is very much going to need.

First let's dispose of the authorship question. The more academically minded, such as Princeton's G. John Ikenberry, trace the idea of a league of like-minded nation states to Immanuel Kant; more to the point, a prototype organization was created by the Clinton administration's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and democracy specialist Morton Halperin. Their Community of Democracies, founded in 2000, still exists but has been hamstrung by its initial decision to include numerous countries that are not, in fact, democracies -- such as Egypt, Jordan and Azerbaijan.

In 2006, Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and a likely player in a Democratic administration, proposed a "Concert of Democracies" in the final report of the Princeton Project, a comprehensive review of national security they orchestrated. Under their plan, members of the alliance would have to be real democracies that held regular multiparty elections. The group's purpose would be ambitious: first to work within existing global institutions such as the United Nations; but in the event that those fail, to provide a framework for organizing and legitimizing international interventions, including the use of military force.

The Concert of Democracies scheme was further elaborated last year by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, who argued in an article in the American Interest that it could encompass up to 60 nations, including 28 of the 30 largest economies. Daalder, who was a foreign policy coordinator for Howard Dean in 2004, is now an adviser to Obama. In a response to the article, Anthony Lake, the candidate's senior foreign policy hand, said that "a functioning Concert of Democracies would not only be much in the American national interest . . . it could be, in important measure, transformative for the world." Daalder later co-authored an article in The Post supporting the idea with McCain adviser Robert Kagan, a forceful proponent in his own right -- which may explain the "neocon" smear. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:24 AM

The group's purpose would be ambitious: first to work within existing global institutions such as the United Nations; but in the event that those fail, to provide a framework for organizing and legitimizing international interventions, including the use of military force.

Well, it might be a spectacularly good idea; it could hypothetically provide a tipping point toward civilization through time, making a focused cohesive presence for the voice of reason and self-governance.

Conversely it could be misused to interrupt evolution toward self-governance, by forcing ideas down the throats of groups not able to assimilate them, culturally, as occurred in Iraq.

It would depend on the charter, and methods. I think it would be very worth trying. But it has serious risks which would have to be understood and managed from the beginning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:33 AM

"The Concert of Democracies scheme was further elaborated last year by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, who argued in an article in the American Interest that it could encompass up to 60 nations, including 28 of the 30 largest economies. Daalder, who was a foreign policy coordinator for Howard Dean in 2004, is now an adviser to Obama. In a response to the article, Anthony Lake, the candidate's senior foreign policy hand, said that "a functioning Concert of Democracies would not only be much in the American national interest . . . it could be, in important measure, transformative for the world." Daalder later co-authored an article in The Post supporting the idea with McCain adviser Robert Kagan, a forceful proponent in his own right -- which may explain the "neocon" smear. " "


I sort of though the idea of bring both sides together would be one you would want to see... Sort of having Obama actually "do" rather than "say"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:58 AM

I am all for bringing sides together.

Obama does plenty, BTW -- right know what he is doing is running for election.

ANyway, union of interests is a great starting point, just as it was for the thirteen Colonies who started the United States. Like them, the union of interests has to be tempered with the respect of individual and regional self-determination under the umbrella laws of union. THis can be a tricky balance, one which has suffered over the years as the WHite House migrated more and more toward plenipotentiary executive predominance.

All Iam saying is that the checks and balances in such a great scheme need to be identified and implemented with thoughtful care to avoid making an earth-mover without a conscience, like the Rove-Cheney axis, and also avoiding creating a conscience without movement, as is sometimes seen in the UN.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:43 PM

Move On urges:

John McCain's chief adviser--Charlie Black--is a lobbyist who worked for
some of the world's worst dictators.1

Now McCain is facing a growing lobbyist scandal--in the past week, five of
his top aides have been forced to resign after revelations about their
lobbying.2 But he's still standing by Charlie Black.3

Black himself told NBC that nobody cares about his ties to mass murderers
and tyrants.4 That's not true.

When you call, be polite, personal, and brief. If the line is busy, it's
because so many people are outraged. Please hang up and try again.

Charlie Black's deal-making goes far beyond the usual corporate lobbying
we've come to expect. His lobbying firm worked for evil men--mass
murderers, terrorists, and tyrants. This is a moral issue.

The firm run by Charlie Black made millions helping burnish the image of
people like:

* Ferdinand Marcos, who executed thousands of his own citizens in the
    Philippines,
* Zaire's Mobutu, who publicly hanged his opponents and looted his
    country's vast mineral wealth, and
* rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, a mass murderer, who covered Angola with
    landmines.

For thorough documentation of Charlie Black's lobbying work, click here.

In the wake of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, we can't afford a president
whose closest adviser lacks a moral compass.

Ask John McCain to fire Charlie Black right away. You can call him at:

John McCain Campaign Headquarters
Phone: [phone]


...

--Noah, Peter, Michael, Matt, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Monday, May 19th, 2008

P.S. This fact sheet documents Charlie Black's lobbying work in detail:

http://pol.moveon.org/charlieblack/video.html#facts?id=12678-7901518-RaJXJc&t=16

Sources:
1. http://pol.moveon.org/charlieblack/video.html#facts?id=12678-7901518-RaJXJc&t=17

2. "A Fifth Top Aide to McCain Resigns," Washington Post, May 19, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3662&id=12678-7901518-RaJXJc&t=18

3. Ibid.

4. "Adviser Calls Lobbyist Scrutiny 'Nonsense,'" MSNBC, May 19, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3663&id=12678-7901518-RaJXJc&t=19

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is
entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate
contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff
ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support
our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=12678-7901518-RaJXJc&t=20

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:16 AM

On Nader, Barr and McCain:


"In 2000, most Democrats found Mr. Nader to be amusing. In 2004, he was aggravating. When he announced earlier this year that he was thinking about another campaign, he was almost assaulted.

But when former Congressman Bob Barr declared recently that he planned to run for president as the Libertarian Party nominee this year, he heard barely a peep from either the Republican leadership or grassroots. Mr. Barr's candidacy would hijack votes away from Mr. McCain just like Mr. Nader did to Mr. Gore eight years ago. But the howls of outrage from the left that greeted Mr. Nader's announcement were not mirrored by conservative anger toward Mr. Barr. The Republican base did not rush to his candidacy either. Rather, most G.O.P. regulars just shrugged.

Shrugging is rarely the indicator of a motivated political party. And Republicans seem particularly unenthused. Worse, 12 years of a G.O.P. congressional majority have added to the complacency, and two years under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid don't seem to have been enough to rouse the party faithful.
John McCain has no shortage of challenges in this uphill race. He is taking on the war debate full force, and is working hard to convince voters that his path toward eventual peace is less risky than Barack Obama's.

While he carries the burden of a recession that most voters attach to the current administration, Mr. McCain argues strenuously that tax increases during tough economic times is unwise. He turns questions about his age into answers about experience and preparation. Uphill fights all, but none more challenging than the broader task of reinvigorating a dispirited Republican Party."
NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Kim C
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:26 AM

McCain at least has a sense of humor. He was on SNL last week poking fun at his "oldness."

I think this is going to be a Libertarian year for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 01:18 PM

I wonder: If something age related happened to McCain, would that make Ron Paul the nominee, because he's the only other Republican still in the race?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:12 PM

IF he was disabled before the nomination, I would think Paul would have an excellent chance of being chosen. But it is the Convention, not the caucus voters, who are selecting a nominee. So it could be someone they decided was a best bet who wasn't even in the primariy race. This is why the use of the word "disenfranchisement" is inaccurate in respect to the Dems in FL and Michigan. There is no franchise for the primaries, from a constitutional viewpoint; there is an inviolable one for the actual elections.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:19 PM

Page 1 of 2 next | Email |         Print | Subscribe
Click-2-Listen
advertisement

Related Stories

Obama hits target on delegates

Kennedy released; heads to Cape Cod



High-court fears drive conservatives to rally around McCain, overlook flaws
By Ralph Z. Hallow
May 21, 2008
Prominent conservatives and activists are indicating they will put aside their differences with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and rally their supporters to his side because of one issue: federal judgeships.

In big gatherings and small, in e-mails and one-on-one conversations, conservative opinion leaders fear a Democratic president, especially Sen. Barack Obama, will use the presidential power to appoint federal judges who will remove references to God and religious symbols from public places.

They predict the incoming president likely will fill more vacancies on the federal bench over the next four years than at any time in recent memory, giving a Democratic administration the power to shape the courts to reflect a liberal worldview.

The American Civil Liberties Union "has been on a national rampage to remove God from every public place: the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, plaques in courthouses, the Boys Scouts when they meet on public property," said Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum, a pro-family group that held a private meeting for conservatives yesterday in a Washington hotel.

"These subjects should get out on the table so people understand what's going on in the courts," she said.

Peter J. Ferrara, general counsel to the conservative legal rights group American Civil Rights Union, said, "McCain said he'd appoint people like [Supreme Court Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito. Obama is saying he'd name people like [Justices Ruth Bader] Ginsberg and [David] Souter."

Conservatives consider the latter pair to be the two most consistently liberal Supreme Court justices.

"Obama is swimming in a sea of left-wing extremism with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright [Mr. Obama's former pastor] and [violent radical activist and Obama acquaintance] Bill Ayers and the rest of them," said Mr. Ferrara, a former Reagan White House aide.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:54 PM

These people certainly enjoy negative hyperbolic styles of speech, don't they? Did they go to special classes in fear-mongering to learn to make statement like that? National rampage??? A sea of left wing extremism?? These are ridiculous statements on the face of it, a souped up fright-stew of unwarranted generalizations and push-button thought processes; the authors should be ashamed to be seen in public with such rhetoric.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 03:51 PM

"...said Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum, a pro-family group that held a private meeting for conservatives yesterday in a Washington hotel."

                  Phyllis Schlafly used to go after gays that way as well, until it was announced that her son turned out to be gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:32 PM

He was a better girl than she was, I am sure...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:53 PM

Yeah, well he wouldn't have to be very good to be better than Phyllis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:05 PM

Meanwhile, in the McCain Camp: The Arizona SenatorÕs campaign suffered another resignation Tuesday, the fifth in recent days. Mr. McCainÕs ad whiz Mark McKinnon announced he was leaving, keeping a promise he made last year not to work against an Obama candidacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:24 AM

When Schlafly started out, years ago, one of her major themes was that a woman's place is in the home- she was death on 'radical feminists'- but she was on the road away from her large family.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:54 PM

WASHINGTON, May 22 (UPI) -- Lobbyist Charles Black, a friend and key adviser to U.S. Sen. John McCain, has come under fire for his representing foreign interests, including dictators.

U.S. Justice Department Foreign Agents Registration Act records submitted by Black's firm describe lobbying efforts during the 1980s on behalf of brutal Angolan guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi, who was fighting the country's Marxist government, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

Black's firm also represented other U.S.-backed leaders with dismal human rights records, including Philippine's Ferdinand Marcos, Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko, Nigerian Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre.

Democrats say they want the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to fire Black because of his client list.

McCain, R-Ariz., "portrays himself as Mr. Clean, and then he has all these lobbyists around him who are connected to a lot of not-so-clean people," said Paul Light, a public service professor at New York University.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., can paint McCain as a Washington insider, Light told the Post, "and what could be more Washington-esque than having a dictator as a client?"

Republicans counter that Obama's hands aren't clean. They note that while Obama doesn't accept donations from lobbyists, the senator has had lobbyists informally advising him.

100

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:41 PM

There's a long and disgusting history of people blaming the Jews for their own persecution. The latest to do so is one of John McCain's key backersÑPastor John Hagee.

McCain actively sought Hagee's backing and says he's "very honored"1 and "very proud"2 to have it. But yesterday, a recording surfaced of Hagee "explaining" that God sent Hitler to perpetrate the Holocaust because Jews weren't moving to Israel.

It's hard to overstate how deeply offensive these views are. And how disturbing it is when John McCain aligns himself with extreme religious right leaders like Hagee, while ducking responsibility for their hateful views.

J Street, a new progressive Jewish group, is asking John McCain to renounce Hagee and send a clear message that it's absolutely intolerable to blame Jews for the Holocaust. You can sign on to their petition here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3689&id=12704-137503-c_hPy_&t=1

MoveOn members have already confronted McCain over Hagee's comments on Hurricane Katrina, but he refused to reject Hagee's support. We need to turn up the heat. Please help us send a message that hate has no place in American politics.

(MoveOn.org Political Action Team)

P.S. As J Street points out, it's not just Hagee's views toward Jews that are outrageous. From their alert: "This is the same John Hagee whose support John McCain is 'glad' to have despite 'condemning' some of his views.3 And it's the same John Hagee who has so far had to apologize for calling the Catholic Church a 'great whore' 4 and who said Hurricane Katrina was the judgment of God against New Orleans for planning a gay pride parade.5"

And if you want to see Hagee's actual comments, here they are, as reported today by the Huffington Post:6


Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: "'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."

He goes on: "Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.

"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible saysÑJeremiah writingÑ'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."


Sources:

1. "McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran'," Think Progress, February 28, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3553&id=12704-137503-c_hPy_&t=2

2. "The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam," Salon, February 29, 2008.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/29/hagee/

3. "McCain Admits Hagee Endorsement Was A Mistake," ABC News, April 20, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3685&id=12704-137503-c_hPy_&t=3

4. Press Release, John Hagee Ministries Website.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3688&id=12704-137503-c_hPy_&t=4

5. "Pastor John Hagee on Christian Zionism," NPR, May 22, 2008.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6097362

6. "McCain Backer Hagee Said Hitler Was Fulfilling God's Will," Huffington Post, May 21, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3687&id=12704-137503-c_hPy_&t=5

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:55 PM

ohn McCain, who at one point actively pursued an endorsement from controversial pastor John Hagee, just severed ties after reports surfaced of yet more incendiary comments by the conservative minister -- this time targeting Jews.

The comments came in the late 1990s, when Hagee said that the Nazis were doing God's work to shepherd Jews to Palestine. Hagee also has referred to the Catholic Church as "the Great Whore." McCain earlier disassociated himself from Hagee's comments but kept the endorsement. This afternoon, he jettisoned the endorsement.

But he also tooks pains to point out his "minister problem" is different from the one that Barack Obama has been dealing with.

ÒObviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well. I have said I do not believe Sen. Obama shares Rev. Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Rev. Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for 20 years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today."

-- Scott Martelle

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:45 PM

"...yesterday, a recording surfaced of Hagee "explaining" that God sent Hitler to perpetrate the Holocaust because Jews weren't moving to Israel..."

                           I'd never heard that one before, but doesn't he have his history twisted?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:22 PM

I don't think he is held to the same logical standards as the rest of us, Rig...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:49 PM

Yeah, but don't you think people would notice that Hitler expired in 1945, and the modern state of Israel wasn't established until 1948. I mean, isn't there an element of disconnect there?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:29 PM

Not in Hagee's wold view--the return to Israel was preordained thousands of years ago and Hitler was God's way of showing he was pissed that it was taking too long to get organized. He doesn't mean Israel, the legal nation, but Israel, the spiritual home of Judaism. But it's still a crank call not matter how reasonably one gussies it up.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:46 PM

Obama and McCain have been trading jabs over a Veteran's Aid bill which Obama supports and McCain opposes.

Some comments:

"The strange thing about the statement is he attacks Obama, but praises his friend Jim Webb for taking the exact same position.

Why does he say Obama have "less than zero understanding of" the issue while saying he would "never suggest that [Webb] has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans."

McCain can't have it both ways. He seems to be so over the top in his (or whoever drafted it for him) attack. If Obama has zero understanding, then it seems Webb would. And if Webb has the best of intentions, than it would seem Obama does.

Posted by: Steve Rhodes | May 22, 2008 at 07:10 PM
The reason why Obama gets under his skin is he knows he's a formidable opponent and he's worried. He knows that Obama has a point on this issue that makes him (McCain) look bad.

Posted by: Elizabeth | May 22, 2008 at 07:19 PM
Maybe McCain should take time out his schedule to show up for a vote that benefits veterans. Maybe McCain should do that instead of raging at someone asking a legitimate question.

John McCain: There for Veterans....Unless He's Busy Campaigning

Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2008 at 07:37 PM
the straight-talk express is :

NEVER .......

straight and: mighty "slow" !

Posted by: J | May 22, 2008 at 07:39 PM
Me thinks McCain doth protest too much.
If the barb was made by one who's views are without merit, then why dignify it with a response? This makes McCain sound very insecure (not to mention immature)."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:39 AM

John McCain claims he stands for and the supports the troops, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth his, he's a no show.

Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a new G.I. Bill that they will increase and expand the educational benefits for soldiers who served in Iraq. Bush and Mccain both opposed this bill, but apparently their sway over the party is waining, because half of the Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill. Even Joe Lieberman voted for it!

With leadership like that, it's probably best McCain decided to rake in $2.5 million in California while the bill was being voted on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 08 - 12:09 PM

Doesn't it have something to do with extending benefits to family members, and not just the veteran him/herself?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:30 PM

For Memorial Day, 2008:

On Monday, the nation will join its nearly 24 million veterans in remembering the American heroes who have lost their lives in war. Yesterday, the Senate honored U.S. troops by passing a 21st Century GI Bill, expanding educational benefits for veterans who joined the service after Sept. 11, 2001. "Congress today resolutely asserted that it is time for those of us who have been calling on these brave men and women to serve again and again to assist in providing a meaningful chance for a first-class future," said Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who sponsored the legislation. Seventy-five senators voted to fund veterans yesterday, providing a veto-proof majority. Yet not only did Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) not vote for the bill, he didn't even show up to vote (the only other senators missing were Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-CA), for health reasons, and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who had to attend a funeral). In the past, McCain has promised to "do everything" in his power to look after the nation's military. But a look at his record on veterans issues shows that he has unfortunately favored conservative pandering instead.

A COMPREHENSIVE NEW GI BILL: Yesterday's vote on the 21st Century GI Bill was 75-22. The legislation garnered wide bipartisan support, including Republican cosponsorsÊSens. Chuck Hagel (NE) and John Warner (VA). Under the bill, members of the military who have served on active duty since 9/11 are eligible to receive education benefits equaling the highest tuition rate of the most expensive in-state public college or university, along with a monthly stipend for housing determined by geographical area. It would also "create a program in which the government would provide a dollar-for-dollar match to contributions from private educational institutions with higher tuition rates than those covered under the bill." Despite claims by McCain and the White House, Webb's bill would help the military's enlistment rate. The new GI billÊ"is projected to cost about $2.5 billion per year," roughly the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq for one week.

DASHING HOPES AND DREAMS: McCain, however, opposes these generous benefits for troops' education. He instead signed onto a watered-down, Bush administration-approved version offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). This legislation would exclude many servicemembers by reserving the most generous benefits for soldiers who have served at least 12 years. It would also shortchange National Guard and Reserve members, offering them fewer benefits. McCain likes to say that as a former soldier, he understands what is best for veterans. But his version of the GI Bill was opposed by the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), and the American Legion. More than eight in 10 members of the American public also support a comprehensive GI Bill. Kristofer Goldsmith, who served in Sadr City and was stop-lossed after returning home, testified to Congress on May 15 that he had attempted suicide and was discharged. Because he couldn't serve a second term, he had to forfeit his "one hope and dream" to go to college under the GI Bill. "And currently there is a Senator in Congress currently running for president, who is fighting to kill our Webb GI bill," said Goldsmith. "And I'm one of the soldiers who will never get that money."

FAILING GRADES: McCain's record on supporting veterans is one of the worst in Congress. IAVA has given him a grade of a "D" for voting against veterans' priorities so often between 2000 and 2006. A scorecard of roll call votes compiled by the Disabled American Veterans found that McCain has voted for veterans funding bills only 20 percent of the time. For example, in May 2006, he voted against an amendment providing $20 billion to the Department of Veteran Affairs's (VA) medical facilities. In April 2006, he was one of just 13 senators to vote against providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care "and treatment for veterans." McCain has railed against comprehensive universal health care and wants to give veterans the "freedom to choose to carry their V.A. dollars to a provider that gives them the timely care at high quality and in the best location." But as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes, "[T]he Veterans Health Administration is one of the few clear American success stories in the struggle to contain health care costs. ... [I]t's an integrated system -- a system that takes long-term responsibility for its clients' health -- to deliver an impressive combination of high-quality care and low costs." McCain's plan, however, would "privatize and, in effect, dismantle the V.A." In his narrow-sighted focus on eliminating earmarks, McCain may also cut funding for military housing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:26 AM

The way things are for people working in the private sector, I can certainly understand anyone's objection to giving more benefits to veterans.

                   Still, if Bush hadn't engaged in this war for Israel, I don't think we'd be having this discussion at all right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:10 AM

Perhaps McCain was too busy sneaking his medical records and Cindy's tax returns by the American people knowing that a Friday before a holiday weekend would be the absolute best time to do so becuase the American people aren't paying alot of attention... BTW, the records were only available to the media for a short period of time...BTW, Part B... Cindy earned (???) over $6M last year...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:35 PM

"The revolving door connecting politics and interest-group advocacy is a Washington institution. For aspiring Democrats and Republicans alike, serving as a senior aide to a prominent politician is one of the main career paths for a lucrative career in lobbying -- and vice versa.

What McCain and Obama set out to do seems simple enough: ban lobbyists from their campaign staffs, thereby appealing to voters who have grown cynical in the wake of endless scandals involving politicians doing favors for lobbyists who plied them with campaign contributions.

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) adopted such a standard when he launched his White House bid last year. Obama says that he now has no federal lobbyists on his campaign payroll and accepts no donations from lobbyists -- what would be a historic standard for a major-party presidential nominee.

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), eager to compete as a reformer but stung by the disclosure of some of his aides' lobbying clients, announced his own policy this month: He too now bars lobbyists from staff positions. He will, however, continue to accept donations from them.

Unlike Obama, he also requires volunteer advisors to the campaign to disclose any lobbying ties and to agree not to lobby the candidate nor his Senate staff during the campaign.

While McCain and Obama exchanged barbs last week, it was McCain who was on the defensive after the resignation of five of his aides. They included a key fundraiser, Tom Loeffler, a former congressman who lobbied for corporate clients and the government of Saudi Arabia. Two other aides left after revelations that their lobbying firm had once represented the military government of Burma, now known as Myanmar.

In the Obama campaign, top strategist David Axelrod is an owner of a political consulting firm in Chicago and also is a partner in a company that specializes in what BusinessWeek magazine described as "astroturfing," also called grass-roots lobbying. It has organized campaigns to build public support to influence state and local government decisions, sometimes working with corporate-backed "citizen organizations" that espouse the company's point of view."



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:51 PM

Cindy McCain hits he Vogue circuit to help out John-John.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:09 PM

It says she's only 53. I'll bet John is happy Bob Dole invented Viagra.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: DannyC
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:27 PM

Here's McCain backing up the money men and dissing the laboring union man (no surprise there)....
Remember this in November!

McCain to visit area firm

By JENNA PORTNOY
The Intelligencer

In his first Bucks County campaign stop Friday, John McCain will host a town hall meeting at a Pipersville company embroiled in a battle with the state over employees' wages.

The presumptive Republican nominee for president will visit Worth & Company Inc. at 6263 Kellers Church Road .

The event is free and open to the public, said campaign spokesman Jeff Sadosky. Doors will open at 12:30 p.m. and McCain will give opening remarks and take questions for an hour starting at 2 p.m., he said.

Bucks County Commissioner Jim Cawley plans to be there.

"I assume part of the discussion is going to be on the economy as well as on the family-sustaining jobs that the company provides," he said.

President and co-founder Stephen Worth started the company after graduating from Central Bucks West High School . Today Worth & Company has more than 500 employees and earned $125 million in revenue last year. The contractor installs and services heating, cooling and plumbing systems in public and commercial buildings and residences.

Worth's story sets an example of American ingenuity that McCain will likely praise, said Geoffrey Zeh, president and CEO of the Southeastern Pennsylvania chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors.

The trade group was the first national association to back McCain back in February, Zeh said. ABC opposes project labor agreements, which are deals that usually limit a large-scale construction project to union workers.

"McCain certainly is in line with ABC on all our issues, particularly on project labor agreements," Zeh said. "That's why we endorsed him."

The issue has garnered attention in Bucks County because the county has not ruled out a project labor agreement for the proposed justice center in Doylestown. Republican commissioners have said they may at some point ask consultants Joseph Jingoli and Son Inc. to study the feasibility of such a deal.

Although labor supporters say in the long run hiring unions is cheaper than hiring nonunion shops, Zeh said union-only projects generally cost more than projects open to all contractors.

"The less companies that bid on a public job, the higher the costs seem to go," he said. "Competition keeps prices down. That's Economics 101."

Worth has expressed similar sentiments himself and McCain's presence at the company underscores the labor debate.

The visit is also significant because the state is investigating whether the company cheated employees out of $142,000 in wages on government projects, including Quakertown Middle School .

The state says the underpayments violated the state's Prevailing Wage Law, which sets pay rates for work on projects involving government entities. The charges could result in a three-year ban on any government work for Worth.

But Worth officials have said the state is unfairly targeting the company — the state's largest nonunion mechanical contractor.

Republican lawmakers have backed Worth with letters to the state attorney general arguing that state labor and industry officials were overly aggressive in pursuing what they called minor noncompliance with the wage law.
n backing the money...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:08 PM

McCain is so "all over the map" on these things that it's hard to know what to believe. The problem with his opponent is, everything he proposes is worse than what McCain fails to propose.
                  What is the voter to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:13 PM

Rg:

Since you say "he" I suppose you mean Barack Obama.

Specifically what has he proposed you think would be a bad idea? Or do you have nothign more concrete than generalized bad impressions?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:40 PM

I'll list two that have been previously mentioned. Leaving the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, and granting "in-state" tuition to illegal immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:53 PM

OK. You never explained why the OFBI was a bad idea--by which I mean, in examining its actual policies and actions. I too dislike the name.   I see nothing wrong with having a Federal office to coordinate actions with the whole spectrum of faith-based charitable activities. Handling the homeless, and other actions that need a compassionate lift. Wish they would change the name though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:00 PM

I do see a problem. There were public agencies set up to take care of social problems before Ronald Reagan and the Bush's destroyed them through lack of funding.
                I think it is terribly wrong to set something up to fill in for them that is based totally on people addicted to superstition with no other qualilifications.
                Addicts need to be treated and helped themselves; they shouldn't be allowed to run the locomotive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 04:51 AM

"Mr. McCainÕs record on Iraq is far worse than Mrs. ClintonÕs. He didnÕt just cast a vote but was a drumbeater for the propaganda Mr. McClellan cites, including the neocon fantasies of a newly democratic Middle East. On ÒHardballÓ and ÒMeet the PressÓ in March 2003, Mr. McCain invoked that argument, along with the promise that Americans would be Òwelcomed as liberators,Ó to assert the war would be Òone of the best things thatÕs happened to America.Ó

To cover up these poor judgments now Ñ and questionable actions, including his public boosting of Ahmad Chalabi, then a lobbying client of the current McCain campaign guru, Charles Black Ñ Mr. McCain is hoping that the Òliberal mediaÓ will once again be complicit enablers. WeÕll see. HeÕs also counting on the press to let him blur his record by accentuating his subsequent criticism of the warÕs execution Ñ as if the warÕs execution (also criticized by countless Democrats), not its conception, was the fatal error.

His other tactic is to try to create a smoke screen by smearing Barack Obama as unpatriotic. Mr. McCain has suggested that the Democratic front-runner is the Hamas candidate and has piled on to Mr. BushÕs effort to slur Mr. Obama as an apostle of Òappeasement.Ó A campaign ad presented Mr. McCain as Òthe American president Americans have been waiting forÓ (not to be confused, presumably, with the un-American president Al Qaeda has been waiting for).

Now Mr. McCain is chastising Mr. Obama for not having visited Iraq since 2006 Ñ a questionable strategy, youÕd think, given that Mr. McCainÕs own propagandistic visit to a ÒsafeÓ Baghdad market is one of his biggest embarrassments. Then again, in his frantic efforts to explain why he sided with Mr. Bush to oppose an expanded G.I. bill that the Senate passed by 75 to 22, Mr. McCain has attacked Mr. Obama for not enlisting in the military.

Besides making Mr. McCain look ever angrier next to his serene opponent, this eruption raises the question of why he chose double-standard partisanship over principle by not applying this criterion to the blunderers who took us into Iraq. Unlike Mr. Obama, who was 7 years old in 1968, Mr. Bush and company could have served in Vietnam as Mr. McCain did."...

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 09:17 AM

I have no reason to stand up for McCain, but I don't see how Obama not having been in the senate, and only being 7 years old in 1968 does anything to help him for anyone actually looking at the facts of what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 10:47 PM

"ill Kristol today proudly announces that one of his Weekly Standard staff members, Michael Goldfarb, was just named the Deputy Communications Director of the McCain campaign. Last April, this newest McCain official participated in a conference call with former Senator George Mitchell, during which Mitchell advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Afterwards, this is what Goldfarb wrote about what he thinks are the powers the President possesses in our country:

MitchellÕs less than persuasive answer [to whether withdrawal timetables Òsomehow infringe on the presidentÕs powers as commander in chief?Ó]: ÒCongress is a coequal branch of governmentÉthe framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government.Ó

True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

After eight years of a President who literally believes in this Ñ and, indeed, proves it on a near daily basis Ñ shouldnÕt it be newsworthy that his Republican successor is, at least, surrounding himself with people who thinks itÕs a good idea?" (Crooks and Liars website)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:01 PM

Of course, if McCain wants to continue the War for Israel, Bill Kristol will be all for it. For rational thinking people, there don't seem to be any candidates left fit to vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:37 PM

I am sorry to say that I think there are a couple. At least one. And I don't think your implication that this means anyone who thinks so is "irrational". The number of times I have had to call you out to explain some irrational statement (or excuse it as a weird sense of humor)! Your version of "rationality" seems to consist in finding faults in each caniddate, whether by association, conflation, misinterpretation, or just wide generalization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:18 PM

I, sir, do not have a weird sense of humor. Well if might be a little weird, but nothing like Bill Kristol's. Of course, he's kind of warped, but...


                      In any event, I think it's time to start thinking about VeePee's. If McCain picked Romney, I might vote for him. If he picked Mike Huckabee I'd probably vote for the Green candidate. The one thing he could do to get me to vote for Obama is to pick Joe Lieberman.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:42 AM

"..But for all the talk about McCain wanting a "higher level of discourse," the bottom line is that he is begging to be rescued from the big problem his campaign has encountered: which is that the only thing their candidate is good at is town-hall meetings.

This was driven home Tuesday night when the Republicans decided to try to insert a McCain speech into the Democrats' final primary night. They were hoping to steal thunder from the moment when Obama clinched the nomination. The actual effect was to offer viewers a chance to compare the skills of the greatest orator in modern American politics with a guy who has never really learned how to read a teleprompter."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:05 PM

Actually, I don't think it's helpful when the greatest orator in modern American politics says all of the wrong things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:51 PM

Some interesting fallout from John McCain's release of his tax return and other financial disclosures: Ralph Vartabedian of the LAT reports today that McCain receives a tax-free, 100-percent disability pension (nearly $60,000 last year) from the US Navy.

McCain would be the oldest man to enter the White House if he is elected president, and questions have been raised about his health. McCain has twice developed melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer.The fact that he is legally designated with a disability pension may raise further questions.

"It is a legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to serve," said Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard.

If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked.

McCain shattered his knee and broke both arms when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967.

---

Comments on the site:

Steve Perry :: LA Times: A president who's 100 percent disabled?

      
that's interesting...
considering that a number of returning vets with TBI and torn limbs are receiving a disability rating of 10 to 40 percent.
Here's how 100 percent disability is defined, according to the Military Times:

At the other end of the spectrum, the military may not exceed the rating ceiling for a specific diagnostic code under the VASRD. However, the VA can award a 100 percent disability rating for the same condition if it finds that the severity of the condition rises to the level that the veteran is incapable of being trained for any type of gainful civilian-sector employment.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Molly Priesmeyer @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 14:51:01 PM CDT
[ Reply ]


   
The smoking reg
Molly, a great and pertinent find. So there you have it: The US Navy opposes John McCain for president on grounds he is not capable of being trained for any type of gainful civilian-sector employment. Or else the Navy thinks Senator and President are not gainful civilian-sector employment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Steve Perry @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 19:59:34 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply ]


   
Just to clarify
the DoD and VA have different disability ratings: If a soldier is rated 30 percent disabled by the DoD, he/she qualifies for discharge and VA benefits. Then, the VA applies another rating to determine what those benefits are. However both the VA and DoD define 100 percent disabled as the inability to maintain gainful employment due to service-related injuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Molly Priesmeyer @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 20:29:33 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply ]


   
Clarification Needed
What's not clear to me is whether a 100% tax-exempt disability pension (as is the case with McCain) means the recipient is 100% disabled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Michael Blaine @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 20:34:55 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply ]


   
yes, it means that he has a 100 percent disablity rating
what the article doesn't make clear is how much he receives in medical retirement (VA) and severance pay (Navy). However, pensions are paid by the VA. And either way, with a 100 percent rating, both define it as the inability to hold a civilian job.



(Minnesota Monitor.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 09:43 PM

Obviously, this is a case made by somebody who is not familiar with the rigors of holding a civilian job. The guy is running for president, for christ sakes, he will be employed by the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:22 PM

Snippets from Brave New Foundation, one of the orgs. I get email from:

John McCain's record on reproductive rights couldn't be more appalling. There, we said it! We said it because the corporate media won't confront McCain on the real issues in this election. They won't tell you, for instance, that McCain has consistently received a big fat zero from NARAL on its pro-choice scorecard. Nor will they tell you that McCain has flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade and now supports overturning this all-too-crucial case.

We must spread awareness about McCain's record now, especially considering a recent Planned Parenthood poll found that half of female voters in 16 battleground states don't know enough about McCain's views on reproductive health. What's more, one in four pro-choice McCain supporters would be less likely to vote for McCain after knowing he opposes Roe v. Wade and backs abstinence-only education.

We're talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn't require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women's rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just another reason, to me a BIG reason, NOT to even consider him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:32 AM

One thing that McCain has going for him is this: in the next Congress, the Democrats are likely to hold large majorities in both houses. There's no telling what they will pass. With a Republican in the White House, anything they did pass would take a two-thirds majority.

                Given Obama's very questionable judgement to date many voters will be reluctant to allow him the option of simpyl rubber-stamping everything that comes out of Congress.

                Even scarier than that is the legislation that he himself might propose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:57 AM

Actually, Rig, I think OBama has shown pretty good judgement to date. In fact, I think that's how he won the nomination.

I suspect you feel otherwise as a result of over-exposure to the hatemongering types who want to make Big Issues out of molehills and irrelevancies so they can look important.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:30 PM

Actually, Amos, I think Obama won the nomination because in the early going MoveOn.org decided to back him instead of Hillary or Edwards.

               Going forward, McCain will have to put into place a competitive fund raising mechanism, and about the only place he can go to do that is to the right-wing-religious-wakkos, so he'll have to cater to them.

               I don't see this as a good development for the country, any way you choose to look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

I am inclined to agree with Fantasma's general outlook which was that neither party (Dem or Repub) seem to serve the best interests of the American people. The USA has had one or the other in power for as long as I can recall and there is STILL no universal health care program; still wars every few years; still lots of poor people; still issues of race and gender.

IMO, the big thing that McCain has going for him is that he ain't George Bush. However, I could say the same of Obama, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:59 PM

Neither of them are, but of the two I wouod say McCain has more Bushoidity to live down than Barack does. I don't think you would ever find Barack Obama making facetious jokes about Bombing Iran, for example. If he was ever forced to do such a thing, he sure would not greet the duty as welcome, and he sure as hell would not be making pubescent wisecracks about the cost of doing so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 12:01 AM

Rumor has it that Obama will have Jeremiah Wright writing his speeches for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 10:40 AM

"John McCain's political evolution, or possibly devolution, during the last eight years speaks volumes about the hold of these special interests. During his 2000 race for the Republican nomination, McCain openly derided the religious leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, as agents of intolerance.
Today, he actively seeks the support of such far right religious figures and has delivered a number of major speeches in recent weeks that narrowly appeal to social conservative audiences, on topics from defending religious freedom to attacking activist judges. In 2001 and 2003, Mr. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, but today he apes the supply-side economic theory and militant anti-tax orthodoxy of Grover Norquist and Club for Growth. Like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the 1980s, Mr. McCain has demonstrated little choice but to embrace the policy agenda of his party's most prominent interest groups. His fealty to these groups not only limits his political mobility, but it threatens his once unimpeachable reformist image.
In 2000, John McCain declared of Republicans: "we are the party of Theodore Roosevelt, not the party of special interests." But Roosevelt split from the G.O.P. because of its growing identification with the nation's business trusts and its abandonment of progressive values. If Mr. McCain were the true descendant of Roosevelt, he would be running against the modern Republican Party and its special interests.
In the short-term Mr. McCain's moves may seem like smart politics; lock up the conservative base and spend the summer and fall reaching out to moderate voters. But as a generation of Democrats can testify, once the party gets into bed with its special interest groups it's not easy to end the relationship.
..." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

McCain is a creature of the past. He is operating under the assumption that the American
electorate will embrace his view of "security" through fear. He is attempting to be John Wayne. His analysis of the Iraq debacle borders on pathology. He is a corporatist through and through and has no regard for working-class families or their needs. He embraces a phony populism that reviles government. BushCo has sabotaged the US government
to the degree that they should be considered at the very least subversive. McCain
supports their war criminal behavior. The US government has become undermined.
Obama will not bring about the magical change that some hope for but if he doesn't win
the presidency, the US is in big trouble (even more than now).

Unfortunately, Hillary played into McCain's machinations by suggesting that only she or McCain were qualified to be president. This was terribly damaging to the Democratic Party.

At the moment, the Right-Wing Republicans are suggesting that Hillary supporters feed their anger by supporting McCain. This would be disastrous for those who espouse genuine feminism. McCain is anti-abortion, would reverse Roe v Wade and turn the glass ceiling into iron.

As far as the economy goes, if McCain gets in, the breadlines will form again and strife
will be rampant. Crime will go up since there will not be a level playing field for
those who can't afford high gas prices, health care or must decide between paying for rent or food and medicine.

A McCain presidency is a lose-lose proposition. Do we need this now on top of the
current economic Depression we are facing?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:32 PM

The question that remains to be answered is: what would be worse, McCain or Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:36 PM

Well, with McCain, if you've noted his voting record, you know what you'll get--more of the same. If you don't like that, Obama at least offers a possibility of change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:26 PM

"Rumor has it" that certain posters who are forever ranting against religion will be just fine with a man--McCain-- who has stated that the US, according to the Constitution, was founded as a Christian nation. A view that even many Baptist ministers feel is way off base.

And that at least one of these posters is desperately trying to find whatever flimsy excuse he can to avoid supporting Obama--which is the only way to stop McCain from becoming president, and appointing Supreme Court justices who share his views.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:02 PM

The question has only one possible answer. McCain--for all his virtues--would be the worse choice because of his canalized predisposition toward militarism and empire.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 12:10 AM

The conservative Evangelical biographer of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has moved on to a new subject: Barack Obama. And his new book, due out this summer, may lend credibility to Senator Obama's bid to win Evangelical Christian voters away from the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:32 PM

"may"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:36 PM

Any American candidate for president attempts to get the vote of religious people, doesn't he? Why be surprised about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:21 PM

I doubt very much if anybody is much suprised, Little Hawk, but it's sad that we just can't seem to field an honest candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:30 PM

Unsurprising to hear the usual smear against all religion from that source, but most of us realize that being religious does not disqualify one from being an "honest candidate".

Interesting the amazing creativity that poster has in devising flimsy excuses to not support Obama--now it's because he "may" appeal to evangelicals. Whereas it is crystal clear that McCain will actively appeal to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:18 PM

Rig:

The slick manner in which you conflate "religious" wth "dishonest" is downright touching. But it smacks more of fear or grief than of courage, to be honest with you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:37 PM

Sorry, but "religious" and "dishonest" are synonymous terms to me. The bright side for Obama supporters is there are very few people who will admit to realizing this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 12:46 AM

I think we have been around this mulberry bush before, amigo. I certainly respect that conclusion, especially with regard to organized religions of any stamp. But I do not accept it absolutely, knowing there is far too much we do not know about that sort of thing, behind all the ridiculous answers that get passed about.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:02 AM

If he's pretending to be addicted to the ancient superstition of Christianity, he's dishonest in the worst sense.

               If he's really an addict, you have to wonder what the MoveOn.Org folks will think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:24 AM

I doubt they'll think much--we have a massive cultural agreement not to look at that side of things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

I doubt it as well--they seem to have been trained not to think!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 04:38 PM

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, offered a scathing critique of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) today and predicted he would garner substantial conservative Republican support in a handful of battleground states critical to McCain in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Barr, a one-time conservative Republican House member from Georgia who broke with the Bush administration and many of his former congressional colleagues, blasted McCain for his support of the war in Iraq, his energy policies and his stand on reducing government spending.

"With regard to domestic policy, Sen. McCain really has put forward nothing that would indicate he believes in dramatically shrinking the size and cost of the government," Barr said during an interview on washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program. "He does talk a great game about doing away with earmarks, but that really does not get near to the heart of the matter of the massive federal spending, the massive federal debt and the deficits we're running."

(wapo)

Also of note: McCain and others toward the right are now blasting Obama for walking away from 8 million dollars in public funding for his campaign. Obama's had earlier promised to support mutual adherence to public funding with its concomitant spending limits.

Obama's argument is that he is facing a broken system that his opponents have expertly gamed. The decision leaves him with a much larger warchest, without the spending limits, than McCain will have if McCain adheres to the public funding option.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:01 PM

Obama (is) walking away from... public funding for his campaign. Obama's had earlier promised to support mutual adherence to public funding with its concomitant spending limits.

                Yes, this is definately somebody you can not depend on!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:32 PM

Two things:

1)    Isn't it $80 million, not $8 million which is the public funding option?

2)    I think I've read that Ron Paul is considering running with Barr. Anybody else confirm or deny that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:59 PM

Yeah--how dare he turn down eighty million of the taxpayers' money. It's insulting, is what it is!!

But I tell ya what you can depend on him to do. That is, learn new information, and adapt to the conditions indicated by new information.

So suppose you had thi deal, Rig: 80M from Uncle Sam, with strings attached; or ten times that from over nine million admiring American citizens, no strings. Suppose further you had to launch a national campaign to reach as many Americans as you possibly could.

How would you choose?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:03 PM

There are a lot more strings attached to the money coming from the MoveOn Wilderbeests that there every would from the public financing. In fact, public financing is what we should be moving towards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:08 PM

Pray tell, what strings--the vast bulk of the money in Obama's warchest is from individual private donors in small amounts. What strings do you think you are referring to?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:27 PM

One thing is for sure and that is public financing leaves alot to be desired... John McCain not only accepted it but used his potential funding as collaterial to eseure a laon to keep his campaign afloat... I don't like that... I mean, these are my tax dollars that are being used as collaterial... Something about this just rubs me wrong...

But worse than that is that after McCain got healthy finacially he changed his mind and then, ahhhhh, seems changed his mind again because the bucks just aren't rollin' his way???

I mean, if we are gonna fund elections with public funds then lets do it... No loopholes... No games... No high paid accountants... Lets just do it... But that's not the way it is set up and until that is fixed then folks are gonna do what they gotta do...

BTW, it's sour grapes on McCain's part to complain about Obama opting out... When things looked good for John he was all for opting out... Now that the bucks ain't coming in the story changes...

"Story changes", Bobert???

Welcome to the "Straight Talk Express" where the story seems to change daily...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 09:56 PM

Pray tell, what strings--the vast bulk of the money in Obama's warchest is from individual private donors in small amounts. What strings do you think you are referring to?

                   But they're all part of the evil MoveOn/ Wilberbeest network. This all started with the Reagan Administration, with would explain why Obama is so hopelessly addicted to superstition, and so full of praise for Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 10:55 PM

MoveOn did not, actually, start under Reagan.

And furthermore, he is not "full of praise" for Reagan; he praises certain of Reagan's virtues and policies.

From the MoveOn site, where any responsible enquirer could have found it as easily as I did:

"MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard."..."The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now MoveOn.org Political ActionÕs Executive Director."

I would like a definition or reference to "Wilberbeest" as it makes no sense to me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 08:30 AM

Sorry, I meant Wildebeest.

               I didn't mean to imply that I thought MoveOn was started under Reagan. I meant that the Reagan policies empowered it. One result of Reagan's breaking as many of the private sector unions as possible, was that the public employees grew in power and strength. Reagan couldn't break the public unions, i.e. teachers and etc. And maybe he didn't want to because they had a strong herd instinct and whoever was running Reagan could use that. Public employees gained, everyone else lost, and that didn't seem to bother the public employees at all.

               Unlike Barak Obama, I can't think of anything good to say about Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:39 AM

Wait....you're really messing with my head, aren't you???

Two guys start a civic action, publically communicated, free-assembly type organization to promote forward-looking political action.

And you say Reagan empowered it?

It strikes me that maybe the Bill of Rights did the empowering, no?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 10:35 AM

This is really hard to describe. I suppose I'm guilty of projecting the Obama supporters I know onto the landscape of Obama supporters in general. But the ones I've seen and heard in the media fit it pretty well.

             I understand that the founders of MoveOn seem to be motivated out of a sense of public duty. But I see them as a kind of Rush Limbaugh of the day. When the "Fairness Doctrine" was allowed to expire, Rush Limbaugh was able to project his thoughts on the air waves without any concern about truth or rebuke. I really believe he thought he was doing this out of a sense of public good too.

             If it hadn't been for the Ned Lamont affair, this might have passed under my personal radar screen unnoticed. But advances in technology have allowed the MoveOn folks to thrive and grow. Now it's their thoughts and values that are being projected onto the American political scene. Many of their values are not my values. They are just too narrowly focused, I think, to encompass the hopes and dreams of the lager American citizenry.

             I don't think the Bill of Rights comes into play here. Apparently the freedom to form collective bargaining groups and hold corporations accountable wasn't protected to any great extent by the "Bill". The rights of public employees to do the same thing was strong enough, however, that the Reagan handlers were either not able to break it, or they figured out ways to use it to their advantage.

             If Barak Obama ends up being the next Michael Dukakis, a number of us are going to assume the latter. That is, the NeoCons used the nonthinking hordes in the Democratic Party to put their man, McCain, back in the Whitehouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 10:55 AM

Nonthinking hordes are with us on both sides of the divide, good Rig.

People have been organizing into larger forms since the first tribe.

So I am not sure what you're standing up against here. Ned Lamont? Maybe I missed the scandal sheet that week. Its important to recognize that (a)MoveOn is a self organized group supporting liberal issues and (b)Rush Limbaugh is a psychodrama queen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 11:31 AM

Like I said, it's hard to explain. Coal miners in West Virginia get it, and steel workers in Pennsylvania and Ohio get it. People in positions of political punditry do not get it, and people without vision in the center of mindless herds do not get it.

                If Rush Limbaugh is a psychodrama queen, moveon.org has to be today's version of Joseph Goebbles.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 01:05 PM

I am still not clear on what the "it" you refer to is. MoveOn has built up a poular voioce through ordinary dissemination, using the web. Nothing covert about it. They gathered momentum by building agreement. There are a hundred rabid Rush-like right wing blog and PAC sites doing exactly the same thing with their feverish version of truth, spiced with anger and disgust and overly-broad generalizations, reciting the mantras of Limbaugh and COulter into the national consciousness without any true sense of responsibility.

I think my point here, as you also indicate, is that each of these groups represents what it believes to be good purposes in forwArding the national interest or the community interest.

On both sides of the spectrum these ideas are often colored by individual exposure to extreme incidents or compelling world-views that are slanted one way or another for a variety of reasons. Painting liberals as communists, or right wing political voices as fascists, is in both cases an effort to avoid thinking about the many details and vectors actually in play int he world, by adopting a bunch of inacurrate catgeroical responses. The reason I so dislike Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk is that they use their pulpits to promulgate this exact kind of irrationality, flavored by fear or anger.

I am not asserting that MoveOn does not resort to some of the same techniques, but I think they do so less extremely. The history of propoganda, as it used to be called before it became dignified weith the name "PR", is long and colorful and covers both sides of every disagreement.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

"I am still not clear on what the "it" you refer to is..."


                   Yes, I'm quite sure of that. I think that's where the discussion breaks down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 04:19 PM

I'll try to describe it this way:

       In a literature class, a Hillary supporter would read Faulkner's book "Absolom Absolom," and digest for himself/herself what the writer had to say about racism in America.

       An Obama supporter would read the Cliff Notes, and then read the professor's own book on the subject of Faulkner's "Absolom Absolom."

       The Obama supporters would score higher on the test. The Hillary supporters would come away knowing more about racism in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 04:44 PM

Actually there is a very good chance that some of McCain leaning 527's will get McCain in trouble rather than out...

The Clintons did not fare well when they used subtle race tricks and they were subtle... Now fast forward to this October an' the last thing in the world that John McCain is going to need is to be percieved as allowing others to use race on his behalf...

Gonna be a lot trickier than the Swiftboaters of the Willie Hortons because one of the things that people say they are sick of is politics as usual and I'm sure the Obama folks have allready anticipated the various attacks, disected them and are ready to turn these attacks back on the attackers, just as they did to the Clintons...

There won't be a repeat of Dukakis and you can take that to the bank...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

Jaysus, Rig. I would have reversed those two descritpions 180 degrees around.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:35 PM

I think you would have been wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 11:08 PM

A much closer analogy:

A Hillary supporter would flunk the test, then complain he didn't understand that it was better to answer all the questions than just to put all effort into the questions he thought were more important. An Obama supporter would realize all the questions are worth dealing with.

And the Obama supporter would have studied the entire book--not just what he guessed the professor would test on. And therefore know far more about it than the pro- Hillary student did. And would not complain even if he didn't do as well as he had hoped on the exam.

It's time, however, for Hillary supporters to stop tramping in the sour grapes. The wine that comes out will not be one you want to drink.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 11:44 PM

Ron - I really tried to come up with a scenario that would work to distinguish the difference between the Democratic elites, and the average working class Democratic voter. I can see my efforts were wasted.
                   The only question that remains to be answered, I suspect, is how many disenfranchised working class voters will simply vote for McCain, and how many will roll up their sleeves, and go the extra mile to actively work against the potential presidency of Barak Obama.
                   I suspect the numbers in both camps will surprise you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM

"Working class voters" who vote for McCain are proving beyond doubt that they have no idea of their own self-interest.   Sometimes I wonder if that description fits the poster himself who predicts this absurd result.

McCain's only solution to economic problems and health problems boils down to "let the market take care of the problem." Obama sees a much bigger role for government to help the middle and working class.   Case in point--Obama's tax changes would benefit the middle class and working class lopsidedly--not, as under the Bush tax cuts--which McCain would continue in their entirety--the upper class.

McCain would also continue the Iraq war--which relies on cannon fodder from the "working class". Obama would bring the combat troops home from Iraq--and I've read that this idea is resulting in substantial support for him among the troops themselves, who realize the open-ended nature of McCain's planned commitment in Iraq. Even though it is now totally pointless--if it ever had a point--since there is now no chance that al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq, which is the threat GWB and now McCain have held over the heads of the US public.

He is also completely on the wrong side for anybody who believes in abortion rights--and he will appoint Supreme Court justices who share his view.


All this is obvious to anybody who thinks. Working class people are as capable of thinking as anybody else.   It's the poster who predicts mass working-class vote for McCain who is the real elitist--he thinks he knows working class people are not smart enough to see their own self-interest.

And as usual his views are not graced by any logic or evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:54 PM

Ron - "Self interest" is a term that might be a little harder to define than you make it out to be.


                And as for this: "He (McCain) is also completely on the wrong side for anybody who believes in abortion rights--"


                Not necessarily. If you would look at a wider range of social commentary, you would know that the religious right is now making the case that if we had just kept strict anti-abortion laws the country wouldn't be running over with illegal immigrants now.

                So a working class voter might very logically conclude that the best way to combate illegal immigration is to overture "Roe vs. Wade."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 01:16 PM

I don't think that birth of illegal people is a really significant source of illegal immigration.

It strikes me as a bizarre assertion.

Any sources of fact to it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 01:51 PM

I dont' think they are talking about the birth of illegal people. My take on their arguement is: if the US had not allowed 12 million abortions (you pick the number) over the course of the last thirty years, we would have that many more people amongst our ranks, and there wouldn't be any reason for the illegal immigrants to have come here in the first place.

             As for sources, I've heard a long string of right-wing-religious-wakkos making this claim, though I'd have to search to find one. I'll give it a quick look.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 01:55 PM

This is a quote from Tom Delay:

Tom DeLay tells College Republicans that abortion, illegal immigration are linked Michael Roston
Published: Wednesday July 18, 2007   


Former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay told a gathering of College Republicans that a link exists between legal abortion and illegal immigration in America. The remarks were included in a video produced by writer Max Blumenthal and posted at The Huffington Post.

"I contend [abortion] affects you in immigration," DeLay told the Washington-area gathering. "If we had those 40 million children that were killed over the last 30 years, we wouldn't need the illegal immigrants to fill the jobs that they are doing today. Think about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 03:43 PM

Oh, I see the thread, Rig. Completely off the wall, but at least it makes a certain cross-eyed sense.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 09:20 PM

Yes, and that's the logic which will cause a number of voters who have been concerned about Roe Vs. Wade in the past, to become less critical of future Supreme Court nominations from a Republican president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 12:50 AM

Unlikely to be any of those between now and 2016.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 01:20 AM

McCain talking points I don't understand.

"we need to fight racism with racism."

I hear it on right wing talk radio but I really don't get it.
Is this about Obama or the border?


"McCain will win the war on terror"

I know he is a loyal neo conquistador but the war on terror is just a fictional metaphor for endless war.
John wants to be the Cortez of America and win the black gold from the conquered people of Iraq but no one can win a war against a military tactic called terrorism.


"McCain will preserve our treasured institutions."

I guess this is about the military first and foremost but there are a lot of similar institutions that no longer serve humanity or the Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 07:45 AM

I can say what I interpret two of them to be:

         "we need to fight racism with racism."
       This probably has to do with "racism" as we've seen demonstrated by Michelle Obama and Reverend Wright. I would take it to mean working against "reverse discrimination" and for an end to affirmative action.

       "McCain will preserve our treasured institutions."
       I would think this has to do with keeping control of public schools in local communities, and more importantly, preventing the wide spread acceptance of "gay marriage."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:49 AM

Ummmmm, racism "demonstrated by Michelle Obama", Rigs??? Would you like to expound on this accusation, por favor???

And as for "treasured institutions" one would think that marriage "vows" might, ahhhhh, be in that list but word on the street is that McCain and Cindy were, ahhhhhh, doin' the bump while John was still married to another woman??? Hey, I don't have piccures but that's the word on the street...

Now back to Rig's accusation about Michelle Obama's racism 'cause that oughtta be alot more interesting a story than John McCain's love life...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 10:39 AM

Bobert - Keep in mind I'm just trying to address Donuel's question about McCain's talking points, and this isn't anything I'm an advocate for:

                But if you're not on somebody's e-mailing list who wants you to know about all of the things that were published in Michelle Obama's masters thesis at Princeton, then you might be out of the loop as to what those folks are having to say about her racist attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:04 AM

Well, Rigs, I'm not on any Swiftboat email list but I'm sure that if Michelle Obama was a racist that it woyuld have come up by now somewhere other than rightie/partisan websites... Shoot, just from what I read here in Mudville it is apparent that the Swifties are busy little foot soldiers:

*Obama the Muslim

*Obama the head a secret communist organization

*Obama' mentor in college was a socialist

etc., etc....

Swiftboaters... Start your engines!!!

B

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:30 AM

Rig:

It's kind of highly irresponsible to disseminate slurs for which you have no facts. Do you entrust all your thinking to the vagaries of spire and rumor? That was not my impression.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:38 AM

I am only answering (or attempting to answer) the question posed by Donuel. If one googles "Michelle Obama Thesis," one will probably find the same information that is being transmitted around the internet by e-mail. I got it from 3 or 4 different people, mostly folks I work with.
                  I think it's probably accurate if it came from the records at Princeton. It doesn't allow for a student in her early 20's publishing something that she might not fully agree with a few years later. But still, it's there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:44 AM

Rig:

Have you read her thesis?

HEre's what CBS said:
"What's in the thesis?

Obama, who concentrated in sociology and received a certificate in African-American studies, examined how the attitudes of black alumni have changed over the course of their time at the University. "Will they become more or less motivated to benefit the Black community?" Obama wrote in her thesis.

After surveying 89 black graduates, Obama concluded that attending the University as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole.

Obama drew on her personal experiences as an example.

"As I enter my final year at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates -- acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation," she wrote, citing the University's conservative values as a likely cause.

"Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments," she said, noting the small size of the African-American studies department and that there were only five black tenured professors at the University across all departments.

Obama studied the attitudes of black Princeton alumni to determine what effect their time at Princeton had on their identification with the black community. "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."

Emeritus sociology professor Walter Wallace, who served as her thesis adviser, declined to comment for this story.

"It is important to consider the time period in which Michelle Obama wrote her thesis," College Democrats vice president Scott Weingart '09 said in an e-mail. "In 1985, Princeton was still a very conservative school; [Tiger Inn] would not admit women members for another six years. Today, the student body is a lot more progressive and diverse."

---

While this sounds like a young woman considering the impact of racist attitudes embedded in white institutions of the 80's, it is not the voice of someone being a racist.

To imply that it is is deeply irresponsible, a means of promoting he problem by forwarding false information about it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 12:26 PM

It's okay with me. I'm not trying to promote it one way or the other. I was only making an attempt to address the question. The e-mails that were sent to me, however, make her out to sound like a Black Panther.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 12:57 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photo_edit.gne?id=2604805918

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 01:44 PM

Tell ya' all what... I've got copies of some old articles that I wrote for the Commonwealth Times, which was VCU's student paper, that make Michelle Obama sound like Mother Terresa and The Virgin Mary rolled into one...

And given the tone, Rigs, of your post 23 June 08, 7:45am, compared to your most recent post I would guess that you have had some level of mind-change in regards to Michelle Obama... Correct me if I am wrong...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

I think the difference is, I was responding to the question by alluding to comments on the internet. I don't think it makes sense to go back to something that was written by a graduate student, and then try to apply those same comments to the person 20 years later.

                   If somebody wrote an article when they were 50, it would probably be justifiable to hold them to it when they were 70, if that makes any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

The slurs AND TALKING POINTS are right wing and honestly are begining to go over my head.

Good ol Ringinslinger was merely trying to help me understand what the current hate campaign is about.

I guess it means nothing except that it is a visceral hatred to be learned by the Mc Cain followers.


Even the speeches by W in Isreal that mention Hitler repeatedly in conjunction with Obama's statesmanship plans are so over the top that it is "all sound and fury signifying nothing".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 02:01 PM

I would like to request that you scrutinize such emails, when you get them, with a sense of critical thought and a desire for truth which impels you to rebut falsehoods when you encounter them.

To forward them directly, or represent them to others, without such scrutiny is simply to support the broadcast of falsehood, which undermines the democratic process by distorting its information.

Not a patriotic act.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 02:50 PM

If somebody asks, "What are they saying?"

             Any you respond, "This is what they are saying."

             I'm not sure how you formulate patriotism into the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 07:06 PM

Here's how, Rig.

The linchpin of this country is the self-determined choice by free men and women based on educated viewpoints and te best information available to make right decisions.

That's the Jeffersonian ideal, IMHO, and that is the only way democratic processes can work.

If you pollute the wellsprings of that porcess by injecting false information --- even in an underhanded pretense of no-responsibility for others' misinformation -- you are essentially betraying the process.

Saying "this is what people are saying" is no cover for your own willingness to forward bum information, polluting the cognosphere of the democracy and thus distorting its operation.

This is why Crossfire and Fox News are treasonous--not because they say things I disagree with, but because they promote untruth, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and distortions of the world. Why would a man of rationality or conscience wish to aid and abet such treason?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 07:20 PM

"If you pollute the wellsprings of that porcess by injecting false information --- even in an underhanded pretense of no-responsibility for others' misinformation -- you are essentially betraying the process."


                     So are you in favor of silencing MoveOn.org?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 07:58 PM

Rig:

I don't forward data from wild-ass accusers of McCain or Hillary when I look into it and find them to be false. And I usually take te trouble to find out. It's the least I can do. Take responsibility for your own statements and your own multiplying of good orbad information.

If you find MoveOn has promulgated irresponsible or distorted information, take them to task for it with actual facts.

You know perfectly well, I hope, that I cannot shut down anyone; I am a private individual. And I am not in favor of silencing but educating with real facts, and dropping those communications which distort and falsify.

My concern, which you have not answered, is that you see no wrong in forwarding such infpormation even knowing it is false, in the guise of reporting what people say.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 08:16 PM

Gonna have to agree with Amos on this one, Rigs... The 7:45 post I pointed out didn't say that these were the views of others... It reads as if these are your positions... Go back and reread it if you like and I think that what Amos has just stated here is valid...

When Amos posts something from MoveOn he references it... If he posts an op-ed it it referenced... But to say, without refernece, that Michelle Obama has said or written racist things, without the proper disclaimer or reference, makes you the owner of that statement... I don't buy your argument that you were just giving Donuel an example of what others are saying...

Hey, you have a perfect right to think that Michelle Obama is a racist... You can shout it from the rooftops... That's fine... Just don't duck the question if someone asks you for specifics... Okay???

But I still like you... Really...

Bugt Amos has some very valid points here about folks who one one hand want to be seen as up-and-up in terms of acurate information and the problems that such folks cause a democracy from working properly...

This is a tad beyond puffery ot the usual ah-hah gotcha politics of sematics... Its about spreading false information... As I recall this is how we got bogged down in Iraqmire...

Peace...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:32 PM

Essentially, the information is not false. I would agree, however, that it's improper to use it, because when I went back to check it out, I found it to be an "undergraduate thesis," which would be even less appropriate than a masters thesis, but the right-wing-religious-wakkos will use it anyway. And that is where this entire discussion started, the way I remember it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 10:59 PM

The right-wing wackos--not all of whom are religious, by the way--will indeed use this rumor.

But anybody else who spreads the rumor--by citing it without contradiction--is only doing their bidding.

Only a smear artist--the CEO of Smears R US, to pick a purely theoretical example--would do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:17 PM

ANd, excuse me, but the information is not true, Rig. It is not racist to discuss the problem of racism. That's an inane idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 07:31 AM

But if you take the text that's being quoted, and you substitute the word "white," everyplace the thesis uses "black," and if you find this offensive, I think it probably is racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 07:39 AM

"The right-wing wackos--not all of whom are religious..."


                They probably have to be religious to be wakkos...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:09 AM

Oh, so now we have to take Michelle's thesis and change the wording to make it racist???

Hmmmmmmmm???

Me thinks the rightie-bloggers need to look into developing other hobbies...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:59 AM

Not necessarily; if you don't find it offensive, it probably isn't racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:42 AM

Rig, did you bother to read any part of her thesis?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:19 AM

Yes - I will say this one more time. The allegations of racism are being made by other people on the internet. All I was doing was to point out that they were being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:37 AM

"All I was doing was to point out that [the allegations of racism] were being made."
"This probably has to do with "racism" as we've seen demonstrated by Michelle Obama" (the latter not in quotation in Riginslinger's post).

Is the back-peddling drive on that bicycle worn out yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:54 AM

Rig:

If that is what you meant, it would have been clearer if you had said that, rather than implying it was a fact. That is the slackness of responsibility to which I was referring. I hope you can see the difference very plainly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

This is the original statement:
       "we need to fight racism with racism."

                   This is what I said:
       This probably has to do with "racism" as we've seen demonstrated by Michelle Obama and Reverend Wright. I would take it to mean working against "reverse discrimination" and for an end to affirmative action.



                   This is what Michelle Obama wrote:
"There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. "


                   To a lot of people, this sounds racist. How does it sound if you subsitute the word "white" for the word "black?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:38 PM

It's unlikely that she would still say "benefit the black community first and foremost".

And more to the point, Obama himself does not believe in this attitude.

The person who cited this has all sorts of games he likes to play. If it's not guilt by association, it's taking something somebody said years ago and trying to hang the person with it. I seem to recollect the same thing was tried with Sen. Byrd---who used to be a KKK sympathizer--decades ago.

In fact, it would not be hard to find something somebody said which a reasonable person now would object to--though it was said by the poster's idol, Hillary Clinton. But this one was said quite recently--and said by her, and not her spouse:   the assassination reference.

It would be refreshing if the poster would start thinking--and realize that the choice is between John McCain and Barack Obama. And John McCain promises no end to the Iraq war but "victory" and believes that the US Constitution set up the US as a Christian state.

And any attempt to drag in some off-the-wall statement---years ago--by Michelle Obama --is nothing but more stale merchandise from the one of the slimier purveyors of those offerings---the CEO of Smears R Us.

It also shows that the poster has no idea what the election is really about---and certainly has no intention of actually standing behind his claimed concern about the encroachment of religion on the public sphere. So his whining about this appears to have been a bit more than slightly hypocritical. Unsurprisingly.

Amazing how desperate he is to justify in his own mind his opposition to Obama.

It's a bit pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:39 PM

But also somewhat amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:51 PM

A college student deciding to support her community, as a priority, is twisted into racism?

Dear god.

It seems to me, good Rig, that your FIRST duty in dealing with statements like this is to look at what the person is saying, in the place and time where they are saying. An ardent desire to help a community is not the same as a bias against some other race.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:44 PM

Yes! And all of that makes sense.

                Except where Ron is trying to make the case that this election is in the process of deciding something important. It's not! I have no respect for either of these candidates, and nothing to gain or lose by supporting--or not supporting--either one of them.

                It looks to me like we've got one sleeze-ball running against another sleeze-ball, and whichever way it turns out, the average American citizen will wind up the loser.

                There is nothing to be gained by trying to make the case that McCain is motivated to make the US a Christian state, while at the same time Obama is trying to court the Christian right to vote for him.

                I think the whole world would be better off if people would just simply take a deep breath, stand back, and make personal commitments on an individual basis to commit themselves to actually wake up and deal with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:19 PM

"Obama is trying to court the Christian Right". More drivel--from the Drivel Unlimited subsidiary of Smears R Us, no doubt.

There are thinking people who are Christians, much as it might pain the poster to admit this. These are people worth appealing to. They are not the "Christian Right"--and they are the ones Obama has a chance to appeal to--and are the ones he is addressing.

Then there are also Neanderthal atheists--who for instance are also against Mexicans, and have a host of other gripes, as well as being easy prey for conspiracy theories..   They are not worth appealing to.   It would not be easy to do so as a thinking person, at any rate--since these people don't think.

It is however interesting that the poster admits he has no idea what the election is about.

That at least is a possible reason for his total cluelessness.

It actually is a hopeless case to try to make certain people think. But, as I said, it's fascinating, if a bit pathetic, that at least one poster is so desperate to justify his refusal to support Obama that he has convinced himself there is no difference between Obama and McCain.   Obviously this poster cannot read.

You can lead the horse to water, but if, after several months of looking at the stream, he doesn't realize it's water......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:48 PM

And now Obama is championing the cause of "states rights" and the death penalty. This guy is the sleeziest slimeball who's ever run in a national election. He makes Richard Nixon look like Mother Teresa.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:33 PM

Rig--

Dear gawd, you come up with some wild ones.

What exactly has he said -- as there's nothing Google could find -- that led you to that conclusion? Or is this another one of those "forward the hate" things you are so fond of?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:41 PM

Aw, Rig, I misspoke. I apologize.

"CHICAGO (AP) Ñ Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."
The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12, saying it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime Ñ two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8. It also invalidates laws on the books in five other states that allowed executions for child rape that does not result in the death of the victim.
Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, said that had the court "said we want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision."
Obama has long supported the death penalty while criticizing the way it is sometimes applied.
As an Illinois legislator, he helped rewrite the state's death penalty system to guard against innocent people being sentenced to die. The new safeguards included requiring police to videotape interrogations and giving the state Supreme Court more power to overturn unjust decisions.
He also opposed legislation making it easier to impose the death penalty for murders committed as part of gang activity. Obama argued the language was too vague and could be abused by authorities.
But Obama has never rejected the death penalty entirely. He supported death sentences for killing volunteers in community policing programs and for particularly cruel murders of elderly people.
"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes Ñ mass murder, the rape and murder of a child Ñ so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment," he wrote in his book "The Audacity of Hope.""

---

So there's his position. Raping a five-year old should be punishable by death should the individual states so decide.

And, the Supreme Court should not dictate its opinion to the states on this point.

And in your view, this makes him a slimeball, because why? States rights should not extend to capital crimes? There should never be any capital crimes? What is your beef, exactly?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

I don't know how this plays with the Daily.Kos crowd, but the death penalty is a stupid proposition for any kind of crime, in my opinion. If they didn't want a decision from the Supreme Court, they shouldn't have asked for a decision from the Supreme Court.

               In any event, I'll be looking for a different candidate to vote for in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:33 AM

Well, you've made that pretty clear from the outset, Rig.

As to the death penalty, while I am inclined toward your sentiments, I see no reason Obama should be looked down on for having an equally thoughtful opinion about the dividing line between the Federal and the State jurisdictions. He's not on the Supreme Court or trying to be.

Facing really heinous crimes against the defenseless members of society is noty an easy task, for sure. Maybe the ultimate hard job.

More than any other reason, because there is no deep understanding of the mechanisms that bring it about, of what a mind is and why it breaks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:12 AM

At the end of the day, it costs the taxpayers more money to execute these people than it does just to keep them in jail, if there are no other good arguments against it.

             It will be interesting to see what Obama has to say about the DC gun ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

Chongo is gonna blow him clean out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:42 PM

That will be helpful!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:17 PM

"I'll be looking for a different candidate in November."   Well, since that poster will not be supporting Obama--which is the only way to keep McCain out, it's nice to know we won't be hearing any whining from him on any policy a President McCain might put into place, if by some chance he is elected.

Wow, 4 years of no complaining about the terrible things religion does in the public sector--sure to be even more obvious with the staunch Supreme Court justices a President McCain would pick. Or griping about anything else McCain does.

To hear no complaining from one particular source makes it almost worthwhile to have President McCain.

But not quite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:18 PM

Hillary stole my cookie. Those Clintons never give up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:13 PM

They're persistent!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 11:59 AM

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-'
publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob."

AN interesting defense against the media backlash stimulated by General Clark's comments can be found here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 12:04 PM

(THis would be really droll if it were not so bleeding tragic; excerpt from an analysis of the Religious Right's attack strategies in support of McCain this season.):

"But this election, the theocrats have a twofer. Michelle Obama. Racism and sexism. What a combination. Although fundamentalists once did a good job of using the Bible to support racism (children of Cain and all), they can't use God to support that kind of bias anymore. Too much backlash.

But they can make a case that God hates uppity women.

They're already working on it.

A professor of Christian theology from Louisville's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the Southern Baptist Convention's flagship seminaries, showed the way at a Texas Bible Church a week ago. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the country and a powerful voice for evangelicals.

One reason men abuse their wives is that women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, said Professor Bruce Ware. Women are sinners who want their own way instead of desiring to submit to their husbands..

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas," wrote Rob Allen.

Here is a summation of Professor Ware's 10 reasons that God gave men power over women from Denny R. Burk, an assistant professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas.

1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God's design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).

2. The means of the woman's creation as "out of" or "from" the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8).

3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman's humanity as "image of God" is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her "isha" (woman) because she was "taken out of ish (man)" (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).

4. The woman was created for the man's sake or to be Adam's helper (Gen 2:18, 20).

5. Man (not woman) was given God's moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God's moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).

6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).

7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God's design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).

8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).

9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).

10. The Trinity's equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).

To anyone not indoctrinated into fundamentalist thinking, Ware's reasoning may seem laughable. But not to Professor Burk. He's impressed that Professor Ware used verses from Genesis and the New Testament.

Sure Jesus brought Good News, but women didn't get released from the curse. No, sir. Not them. Professor Ware showed good Biblical grounding in making that point clear.

Ware's reasoning is weak gruel, but the many quotations from the Bible floating around in it make it good, solid food to a lot of Religious Right evangelicals. Remember Ware isn't some yahoo pontificating during coffee break. He's a respected Biblical scholar, an expert in Christian theology, standing in a pulpit. He'll have plenty of yahoos ready to repeat his reasoning.

You can see how it will play out.

Michelle Obama is nobody's little woman, keeping quiet, searching her husband's face to know what she ought to say, as God intended her to be. So she can't be a godly woman..

As for Barack Obama, there are only two options for a man who doesn't control his wife.
Even the fundamentalists aren't likely to say that Obama beats her. So he must be a wimp.

Who wants a wimp for president?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:00 PM

re. Clark-
Here's the whole thing
BOB SCHIEFFER: How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?

CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable.

John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world.

But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made that calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe—could I just interrupt you?

CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.


Swiftboating? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:26 PM

And Clark thinks that Obama has???

Most impressive thing about McCain's service record is that in particularly trying circumstances when offered an easy way out he put others before himself and stuck to his principles. That to me indicates a person that when faced with a tough decision will come through, will deliver, will not take the easy option and pander to the vagaries of popular opinion. Providing leadership has got nothing whatsoever to do with popularity.

The more I see of Barak Obama the more I see an extremely weak and superficial populist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

Teribus:

Perhaps you are projecting. He's a populist, you're right about that.

He is neither weak nor superficial. My suspicion is that he understands the subterranean world of politics better than you do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM

Amos, some people worship god, some worship google. I worship the 3 great truths. Your version, my version and the truth.

For the fundamentalists to go after Michelle is expected I suppose.
Maybe they will start calling her Lilith. Most likely some of the sheep will follow but the easiest slur and accusation they might make will be unsubstantiated drug use. You see McCains wife has already come clean about her descent into drug abuse. Michelle might be left wide open to such swiftboating.

right wing readers...
you will forget ever reading this
you will forget ever reading this
you will forget ever reading this

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:31 PM

McCain criticizes Obama's high court favorites

4 hours ago

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Republican John McCain said Tuesday that his Democratic rival's Supreme Court nominees would produce more decisions like the child rapist ruling that both presidential candidates have criticized.

Addressing the National Sheriff's Association, McCain acknowledged that Democrat Barack Obama had also disagreed with the decision that struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for people who rape children under 12. Obama said he believed carefully crafted state laws permitting execution of child rapists do not violate the Constitution.

Nevertheless, McCain asked: "Why is it that the majority includes the same justices he usually holds out as the models for future nominations?"

"My opponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama court," the Arizona senator said.

When asked by CNN in May whether any current justices would be models for his nominees, Obama replied that he considered Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter to be sensible judges. All three voted in the majority in the child rape case, as did Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens.

McCain himself voted to confirm four of the five who voted in the majority. He was not in the Senate in 1975 when Stevens was confirmed.


McVane changes direction so often that they should be able to attach a generator and help get some non-polluting power out of all that rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:47 AM

And, of course, Oh Bummer generates so much hot air he must be one of the major sources of global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:54 AM

His generator is a tenth the horsepower of yours, Rig. Can't you stay out of the ad hominem loop for ten minutes straight? What is the matter with you? You're posting like a pimply skateboarder with an AOL account and too many Macburgers in his blood.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:25 AM

"His generator is a tenth the horsepower of yours, Rig."


               But he has 100 times the number of exhaust leaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM

And no one cares to comment on this...I guess you'd call it a pre-emptive attack on the possibility that Obama , if elected, would appoint Supremes that would pass legislation that Obama has said he's opposed to?

As opposed, I guess, to the kind of court that McCain would vote to confirm? Ooops..this IS the court that McCain voted to confirm (at least the five who decided against the things that both candidates seem to disapprove of.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

Yes, it's sad we have candidates who will only say what they think the public wants to hear instead of saying what they think, and apparently the pawns on the ground in both campaigns think the public wants to hear the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 02:05 PM

Hey, Rig, it's just a huge marketing scheme. Of course they are saying what they think the public wants to hear! How else can they sell the product effectively? ;-)

The "product" is guaranteed to last exactly 4 years...unless it suffers a main system failure. In that case you can replace it with the VP add-on module. What a deal, eh? And you get TWO (count 'em), TWO great options to choose from...one in red, one in blue...

One quacks like a duck. The other waddles like a duck. They are both bottom feeders. And THIS is what they call "democracy"!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 02:23 PM

And that's the way it is, but nobody says we have to like it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,The Ancient Mariner
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:19 PM

As someone who has been around since before WWII began, I hate the current tendency to see and comment on the political world in mere "sound bites." It affects too many lives and is too profound a force to be taken so lightly by so many.

I feel no great connection to either candidate. I suspect I am far from alone in that. The best and the brightest we have go into business, not politics. That sad reality has never been more evident than now. Most accomplished leaders would not subject themselves and their families to the extreme scrutiny and the dirty tricks inherent in election politics. I think that is a damned shame. This is why:

I think Mr. Obama is very telegenic, but an "empty suit" with sterling presentation skills and an over-abundance of ego. Where he usually falls short is in dealing with hard questions "off script." He is the classic chameleon. He puts his wet finger in the air and crafts another carefully scripted response to the new direction of the wind. I think he could well be elected, but I think most who vote for him either do not really know him or what he stands for or are doing so along purely partisan lines. He is woefully inexperienced for what he potentially faces, but some may actually see that as a benefit. Woe unto them, for the consequence of that inexperience could well be chaos.

Mr. McCain, son of a celebrated WWII Admiral and a noted prisoner of war who endured much torture and anguish, is sincere, but uninspiring. I do not impugn his honesty, but he is not a galvanizing or charismatic leader. Moreover, I think his own ego gets in the way of common sense far too often. He seems to lack focus and a central theme that resonates. I still have profound respect for his service, most particularly the way in which his conduct, under extreme duress, helped fellow prisoners to endure and survive.

The U.S., and the world, need leadership with integrity, that transcends petty politics and is willing to do the right thing for the greater good, even if it means being unpopular in certain quarters. Perhaps McCain can rise to that, as some others have done in the Presidency. I can only be hopeful.

I saw a bumper sticker that pretty well sums up the attitude of many, "VOTE NO FOR PRESIDENT!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: heric
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:31 PM

Dishing the dirt on Obama has led nowhere after a couple of years.

Dishing the dirt on McCain (with decades of material to use) has led nowhere.

I've decided that McCain is not a maniacal, ignorant warmonger. He is not George Bush.

I've decided that Obama is not a fluffy puppet. He's not a racist or closet Muslim.

I won't listen to those allegations any further. We only have a few months left, and look at the issues we should assess.

The global economy is going in the toilet, with US leading the way. The dollar is eroding and we may lose its preferred status in global trade, causing us a lot more harm. Inflation is coming and inflation cannot be quickly eradicated. Boomers are about to start retiring in droves with almost no real savings and mostly without proper pensions.

We have two "wars" not under control, and higher-than-normal instability in the Middle East.

Income and wealth disparities are much higher than ever and are deteriorating further. Health care coverage problems are deteriorating even further.

Neither Obama nor McCain can fix any of these things. They would both agree that they are all bad. Which one could be most effective in pushing the government and private machinery to resist these processes / developments? That's the question as I see it, stripped away from inspirational rhetoric or special interest pandering. All else is diversionary (-especially (a) consideration or discussion of racism, and (b) consideration of how to make people in Iran or England or Bulgaria say nice things about us. – Both of those tracks are roads to nowhere.)

I agree with the Ancient One, immediately above, that the U.S. wants a leader with integrity to transcend petty politics and do the right thing for the greater good. As far as I can tell, either Obama or McCain might try to do that. One of them might even do it with some degree of success (after repaying their political obligations, and probably with the exception of judicial appointments.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:55 PM

Mister Obama is (understandably) trying to be very careful in choosing what he says and does while seeking election. If he intends to GET elected, he has no choice but to tread warily, because the guttersnipes and trolls and slime-merchants have demonstrated that they do not care for or about virtue or intelligence; they care about generating shock, restimulation, fear, and other base emotions.

My belief at this time is that he is doing pretty well for his first time in a national campaign, performed well against Hillary and is doing well against old man McCain. But he knows too well that one foot put wrong (the Dean shout comes to mind, for example) can result in catastrophic setbacks.

I believe that if he is elected, as I hope and believe he will be, the pressure of having to win approval from as many people as everly possible will be replaced with the pressure to generate a positive path of action and sell it to Washington and the country. It seems to me we will then see the best he has to show the world and it will be a major improvement.

I could be wrong, of course, as many people here will hastent o inform you, should you ask. It happened once before.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:49 PM

Amos - And which one time did it happen before?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:51 PM

Well, see, there was a time when I was told, and indeed thought, that I had misjudged someone, but I was mistaken -- I had not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 09:11 AM

Great, I'm glad we got that straightened out!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:25 PM

There's no question that McCain is a genuine hero. And there should be no question that there's something awesome about a white kid with a black father, raised in poverty by a grandmother, who fought his way up to Harvard, and then took his law degree and chose to use it for social good rather than cash.

The question is, which one espouses policies that you think will help a foundering country get back on its feet. And it would be nice if the campaign focused on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM

Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didnÕt scream. Hillary Clinton didnÕt say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didnÕt impugn John McCainÕs military service.


Paul Krugman
Go to Columnist Page È
Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, titled his tell-all memoir ÒWhat Happened.Ó But a true account of modern American politics should be titled ÒWhat DidnÕt Happen.Ó Again and again weÕve had media firestorms over supposedly revealing incidents that never actually took place.

The latest fake scandal fit the usual pattern as an awkwardly phrased remark, lifted out of context and willfully misinterpreted, exploded across the airwaves.

What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCainÕs war service, though heroic, didnÕt necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous Ñ especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.

Yet the Clark affair did reveal something important Ñ not about General Clark, but about Mr. McCain. Now we know what a McCain administration would represent: namely, a third term for Karl Rove.

It was predictable that the McCain campaign would go wild over the Clark remarks. Mr. McCainÕs run for the White House has always been based on persona rather than policy: he doesnÕt have ideas that voters agree with, but he does have an inspiring life story Ñ which, contrary to the myth of the modest maverick, he talks about all the time. The suggestion that this life story isnÕt relevant to his quest for office was bound to provoke a violent reaction.

But the McCain campaign went beyond condemning General ClarkÕs remarks; it went out of its way to distort them. ÒThis backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history,Ó said retired Col. Bud Day, who participated in a conference call organized by the campaign. In fact, General Clark had said no such thing.

The irony, not lost on Democrats, is that Col. Day himself has done what he falsely accused Wesley Clark of doing: he appeared in the 2004 Swift boat ads that impugned John KerryÕs wartime service.

The willingness of the McCain campaign to engage in these tactics, employing such tainted spokesmen, tells us that the campaign has decided to go negative Ñ specifically, to apply the strategy Karl Rove used so effectively in 2002 and 2004 (but not so effectively in 2006), that of portraying Democrats as unpatriotic.

And sure enough, Adam Nagourney of The New York Times reports signs of the Òincreasing influence of veterans of Mr. RoveÕs shop in the McCain operation.Ó

Will Rovian tactics work this year?

In 2002 and 2004, Republicans were so successful at playing the patriotism card thanks to a combination of compliant media and cowering Democrats. At first, the Clark affair suggested that nothing has changed. News organizations reported as fact the false assertion that General Clark criticized Mr. McCainÕs military service, and the Obama campaign rushed to ÒrejectÓ his remarks.

ÒTwo days into the Wesley Clark fallout,Ó wrote the Columbia Journalism Review on Tuesday morning, Òthe press, the G.O.P., and the Obama campaign all seem to have agreed that ClarkÕs recent remarks on John McCainÕs service record were at best impolitic and at worst despicable.Ó

Since then, however, both the press and the Obama campaign seem to have recovered some of their balance. Opinion pieces have started to appear pointing out that General Clark didnÕt say what heÕs accused of saying. Mr. Obama has also declared that General Clark doesnÕt owe Mr. McCain an apology for his ÒinartfulÓ remarks and denies that his own condemnation, in a speech given on Monday, of those who ÒdevalueÓ military service was aimed at the general.

In the end, the Clark affair may have strengthened the Obama campaign. Last week, with his cave-in on wiretapping, Mr. Obama was showing disturbing signs of falling into the usual Democratic cringe on national security. This may have been the week he rediscovered the virtues of standing tall.

Furthermore, my sense, though itÕs hard to prove, is that the press is feeling a bit ashamed about the way it piled on General Clark. If so, news organizations may think twice before buying into the next fake scandal.

If so, the campaign has just taken a major turn in Obama's favor...

(NYT Columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 06:51 PM

Waterboarding. http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/John_McCain_Tax_Reform.htm

FactCheck: Against Bush tax cuts in 2003; for them in 2006 McCain spoke as though he had always supported Bush's tax cuts, saying, "I think it's very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I voted to make them permanent twice already." It is true that McCain voted in 2006 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. But he was against the cuts before he was for them, and his statements in the debate dismiss that fact.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/mccain_iraq/ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2008 12:56 EDT McCain: Timeline of Iraq withdrawal "not too important" During an appearance on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday morning, John McCain got himself into some seriously hot water. Asked by host Matt Lauer, "If [the U.S. troop surge is] working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?" To that, McCain responded, "No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That's all fine."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15803.html We learned this week, for example, that John McCain has completely reversed course on the White HouseÕs authority to conduct warrantless searches of AmericansÕ phone calls and emails. Six months ago, asked specifically whether federal statutes trumped a presidentÕs war-time authority, McCain said, ÒI donÕt think the president has the right to disobey any law.Ó Now, McCain has apparently given up on this, and embraced the Bush administrationÕs Òsweeping theories of executive authority.Ó MCCAIN AMENDMENT LAYS GROUNDWORK FOR OUTSOURCING PRODUCTION OF AMERICAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT Yesterday, John McCain defended the Air Force decision to overlook Wichita-based Boeing Co. for a $35 billion contract to build airborne refueling planes, saying he would not work to overturn the decision and saying that military decisions should not be about creating jobs. [McCain Town Hall Meeting, Waco TX, 3/3/08; AP, 3/3/08] Unfortunately for American workers, McCain has the record to back his statement up.

http://www.ksdp.org/node/3968 In 2003, Sen. McCain authored an amendment undermining ÒBuy AmericanÓ rules requiring U.S. military equipment, defense systems and components to be manufactured in the United States. By allowing the Department of Defense to purchase American military equipment from foreign companies, the McCain amendment laid the groundwork for the Air ForceÕs decision to outsource the production of refueling tankers for the American military. The amendment passed along party lines with Kansas Senators Roberts and Brownback voting in its favor. [Vote 191, 5/21/03]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:15 PM

Unfortunately for McCain, Obama has never done anything, so there's nothing the McCain camp can hold him accountable for. That's exactly what Hillary's problem was--how do you run against an empty suit?
                  Once Michelle Obama and Reverend Wright, and that stupid Catholic Priest got in front of the cameras, the public began to figure him out; after that, they started drifting towards Hillary.
                  McCain has a long track record.

                  All of that having been said, it's kind of nice to be following a presidential campaign where I really don't care who wins. One candidate is as bad as the other. So I've decided to root for the underdog until the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:06 AM

" empty suit"--yet another smear, from the king of fact-free drivel.

And it looks like sour grapes is his still favorite dish--still whining about Hillary---who had absolutely no chance against McCain.

She lost--due to her own incompetent campaign--not any imagined "sexism" by the press. Sexism helped her---by riling up the women who were her strongest supporters.

She lost. She's willing to live with that. It's time for her supporters to do so too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:27 AM

She lost above all by--needlessly--- alienating the antiwar wing of the Democratic party, a wing which has had much clout in primaries for quite a while now. And especially after losing to Kerry in 2004, the antiwar wing was not about to accept anybody it did not have to have this time. And to have a smart, articulate, charismatic, post-racial, post -partisan candidate who on top of all that was black--there was no comparison with Kerry, who never did elicit the kind of enthusiasm Obama has had from the start.

But in 2007, the nomination was hers to lose. And in 2008 she lost it. Had she been willing in either 2007 or 2008 to admit she was wrong in 2002 to authorize Bush to use force, she would have split the antiwar movement--and probably won the nomination.

But her campaign is now over--except for trying to assure herself another chance-- eventually-- by this time breaking her neck to help Obama. She knows that if she does not do this, there is no chance the Democratic movers and shakers would ever support another presidential run for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:15 AM

Oh, and Rig...your remarks about obama, grounded in bile and marinated in whatever the bitterness within you really is, are without merit. He has done much, and is no empty suit, a meaningless label in any case. Why not get real here


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:33 AM

Probably the two greatest assets McCain has is (1) he's old enough that he probably won't be running for a second term all through the first one, and (2) the public believes we will have a large majority of Democrats in both the house and the Senate. Most people wouldn't want to turn an un-tried and un-proven Obama loose with that. Especially since he's started flip-flopping on all of the important issues--even the war in Iraq now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:50 AM

For anybody who thinks, the choice is obvious: as a Democrat you are either flexible on issues or you are pilloried by Republicans as a Stevenson , Dukakis, or McGovern--that is, a doctrinaire Leftist, .

There is still a vast difference between Obama---- and McCain, who:

1) still talks of the chimera (look it up) called "victory" in Iraq;   

2)   now says illegal immigrants will have to wait for the border to be secured--which will not happen this millennium --before any talk of a path to citizenship;

3)   wants only "market solutions" to the health care crisis,

etc.

Obviously the CEO of Smears R Us is not expected to think.   His postings will be treated with all the respect they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:52 AM

But it's at least progress that the whining about Hillary's missed chance has stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:25 AM

Ron - Instead of addressing the issues, you continue to attack the poster. If you stand back and look at the effect of that, you will probably find that it doesn't really get you where you seemingly want to go.

                   But McCain.s position on securing the border first is the best issue in the world I can think of to support him. On the other hand, Obama has taken the same position. I don't believe him, however, and apparently you don't either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:59 AM

If one's greatest quality for being president is that you probabaly won't last too long at the job then look out, America...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:24 AM

Bobert - Is your concern related to McCain's age or Obama's racist enemies?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM

As usual, the CEO of Smears R Us does not read carefully.

Obama has said the border needs to be secured--but he will not wait til that happens to start a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

McCain--- in a desperate and possibly futile attempt to curry favor with the Neanderthal Tancredo supporters--possibly said CEO?-- has said he will do nothing towards a path to citizenship until the border is secured.   So he has a handy dodge to never do anything for illegals--since the border will not be "secured" for, say, a few eons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:14 PM

Securing the border is one of those phrases that rolls deliciously off the tongue, strikes a glow in the heart of anyone who fears the invasion of the Hispano-Catholic hordes to the south, and makes a great bumper-sticker, short and powerful. Three small words. But what do people really mean by it? Control every arroyo and byway along the Rio Grande, across the Sonora, all the way to the Pacific?

IF you want to succeed, my frightened friends, you have to get real about the problem and why it has been chosen as the problem to solve.

In this case the problem is not the sacred border, but the humans on either side of it.

This notion that Mexicanos are anti-matter to the decency of America is absolute bull; they are more decent and hard-working on the whole than many of those born north of the imaginary line.

It's a silly poturing proposition. We've already thrown millions, and the border is till 90% porous.

Maybe, just maybe, we are solving the wrong problem because a lot of people resorted to sound and fury instead of analysis?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 05:25 PM

"McCain---said he will do nothing towards a path to citizenship until the border is secured."

                     For those of us who care about the planet and the environment, that's the best reason in the world to support McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM

Rig:

That's a pretty sloppy statement on the face of it. How do you connect the unlikely proposition of closing the border and caring about the environment in your tortured mind?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:26 PM

Amos - You should know that my mind isn't tortured. More people place more demand on resources. More exhaust fumes; more garbage to the landfill; more farm land under asphalt; more cars on the highway; more non-paying patients in the emergency rooms, and the really big one, more children in the school rooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:38 PM

>>Maybe, just maybe, we are solving the wrong problem because a lot of people resorted to sound and fury instead of analysis?<<

Nail on the head. I can't believe the fence isn't dead yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:56 PM

Well, heric, I suppose you're right. When the Pope encouraged the Latin American people to go north and procreate, a bunch of them got caught up in the "Sound and the Fury." But cooler heads in North America have figured out that this migration is a really bad thing for the environment.

                And if you think the fence is ineffective, I would agree with you, but that's the only thing the American government has offered its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:38 PM

Rig:

The people whom you resent so badly do not disappear at the border magically; they produce as much CO2 and methane before they cross as after; maybe more because they drive older trucks with no emissions regulation.

I see your concern about the strain on resources. But the quality of mercy should not be strained,.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:59 PM

"So I've decided to root for the underdog until the election." Riginslinger

Rig, please take note: This is not a game. This is one of the most crucial elections the United States has had, equalled perhaps by only the last one. The latest government has done untold damage - that we know of, and I have the sickening feeling that we don't yet know the half of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:39 PM

"Billions of dollars since the 1980s in fencing, razor wire, electronic sensors and vehicle barriers. A major deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops in 2006, to bolster the Border Patrol. The trashing of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and a host of environmental and land-management laws. (When Congress ordered the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, to build 670 miles of border fence by the end of this year, it decreed that no law or judge, no wild creature or endangered homeowner, should stop him. Last month, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in one of the many legal disputes the fence has provoked.)

The National Guard is leaving the border at the end of the month. And even though the border states want them to stay, the Bush administration is declaring victory. ThatÕs how good things are down there.

Too bad, though, that the results that restrictionists predict from victory Ñ an end to illegal immigration, the expulsion of illegal immigrants, the restoration of jobs to American workers, the protection of American culture and language from a Hispanic invasion Ñ are not coming anytime soon. ThatÕs because fixing immigration has very little to do with any of the hustle and bustle along the 2,000-mile line from San Diego to Brownsville, Tex.

The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego, recently did the radical thing of talking to border-crossers about why and how they come. In a survey of undocumented immigrants from four Mexican states, it found that fewer than half are caught by the Border Patrol. Those who fail the first time try again and again, and their success rates for entering the country hover consistently above 90 percent. Sheriffs, police officers and elected officials in border communities Ñ some of whom have ridiculed the fence and sued to block it Ñ would readily confirm that.

The study offered another compelling example of enforcement gone awry: reports that illegal immigrants who are stymied by a tighter border are staying put, setting down roots and bringing their families over.

This is not to argue for giving up on enforcement. The real victory will come when a repaired, well-patrolled border coincides with a repaired, well-run immigration system that requires undocumented workers to come forward and be legalized, has expanded avenues for legal workers, including would-be citizens, and cracks down on illegal hiring as staunchly as it protects workersÕ rights.

There is a long list of things to do to make the immigration system correspond to American values and economic realities, and the country is doing just about none of them. WeÕre paying a huge price to pay for an ineffective fence and some symbolic victories on the border...."

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:52 PM

"Rig, please take note: This is not a game. This is one of the most crucial elections the United States has had, equalled perhaps by only the last one."


                     Maybe, but it doesn't make any difference who wins. One candidate is as bad as the other. All of the good candidates were eliminated in the primaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:55 PM

"The people whom you resent so badly do not disappear at the border magically; they produce as much CO2 and methane before they cross as after; maybe more because they drive older trucks with no emissions regulation."


                     Frankly, I don't think so. If they refuse to deal with reality and won't adopt any kind of family planning, when they find themselves in a standing room only situation, there won't be any place to drive trucks. This is strictly a circumstance of their own choosing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:50 AM

Jest can't break out of the rhetorical circuit, I guess.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM

Possibly not, but there's no way to avoid the fact that runaway population growth harms the environment more than anything that's happening right now. And having compassion for Latin American people is no reason to give them a license to slash and burn North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: heric
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:58 AM

I agree with rig in that having no immigration laws properly in place and fairly enforced is no way to run a country. The question of who is taking advantage of the other is not so clear to me. We benefit in many ways from these ambitious people who desperately need money and work, but we also fail to account for public service expenditures. I just think the fence is an expensive, inefficient and inconvenient way to address the issues. A failure of Congressional leadership has allowed security contractors and others to tap into the public purse, when creativity and compromise could have served everyone in a better fashion. I still don't know how they intend to properly address the river access needs all of the riverfront ranchers, other nearby landowners, and animals, for these thousands of miles.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

MOst of them, in my experience, do not come to slash and burn, and I see no merit in using inflamed rhetorical devices. They come to garden, clean, tote, drive your trucks and build your garden walls, or anything else they can do for the price of survival. And they often do it in profoundly better ways than their competitors.

I suggest that your problem --if you have one other than mere rhetorical heat-- may be not with "immigrants" or "Mexicans" but with individuals you have run into.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:16 PM

Yes, heric, I agree with all you say here. The fence was far from a reasonable solution. But as I said earlier, it was the only solution the government offered the people.

                  I don't think it was just Congress, though, the president simply refused to do anything, or even to talk about it until late in his final term. The ICE raids that are going on now could have been conducted years earlier. I suspect Rove had concluded that raids would alienate the Hispanic vote, but if one takes the time to talk to Hispanics, the ones who have been here for a generation or longer express concern about the immigration problem just like many other Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:52 PM

he ones who have been here for a generation or longer express concern about the immigration problem just like many other Americans.

Some of them, anyway. I doubt the categorical assertion would hold up.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 03:51 PM

The unfortunate part of this discussion is our ugly history of exploitation of not only people who have built our infastructure but those overseas working in sweatshops...

In 1619 we brought over slaves and for the next 250 years depended in them to build much of our infastructure... After the Emancipation Proclamation we had quasi-slavery for the next 90 years under Jim Crow and 14-B and so here we are a realitivelu wealthy nation built disporportionately on the backs of slaves and freed but highly discriminated blacks...

The Latino situation is not all that different than the Jim Crow erra where we have used Latinos much the way we used blacks during the Jim Crow days and our economy has benefited from their hard work... These people have suffered for our country... They pay taxes... Millions pay into our Social Security system... Yet when things get tough they become the latest scapegoat???

If you want an idea why immigartion reform didn't go thru Congress all you have to do is look at a very obstinate Republican congressmen who have turned filibuster into a daily routine... You can also look at Bush who didn't put up much of a fight to get it thru and lastly, you can probably put most of the blame on the corporate media for hiring demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reily and Ann Coulter who are not journalists but loud mouthed corprate shills...

End of mini-rant...

B~





B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:37 PM

"Some of them, anyway. I doubt the categorical assertion would hold up."

                   The last poll I say had 25% of them strongly against illegal immigration, and another sizable portion on the fence.
                   The Hispanic vote is not a monolithic block at all, though most media outlets seem to want to treat it that way.
   

    "If you want an idea why immigartion reform didn't go thru Congress all you have to do is look at a very obstinate Republican congressmen who have turned filibuster into a daily routine..."


               And, of course, they did that because a huge majority of the American people could see that the reform bill as written was a really bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:32 PM

And now McCain has promised to, if elected, balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. With no new taxes. And no end to the Iraq war.
He obviously should be elected--he knows the Tooth Fairy!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:42 PM

"my mind is not tortured..."   Well, I don't know, the poster sure does a good imitation of a tortured mind.   If it walks like a duck...


And as for the mysterious poll where 25% of Hispanics are against illegal immigration--that bears an amazing resemblance to total drivel.

I wonder why it happens to coincide exactly with what the poster wants to believe.

And a few more questions about it--before it can rise above the level of the poster's wishful thinking.

1)   Date

2) Exact wording of the question

3) Exact source of the supposed poll

And I wonder why it seems unlikely that any of this will be revealed.


Added to which, in fact 100% of Hispanics are against illegal immigration, I'm sure---they would all rather that legal immigration be broadened.

So the poster's assertion, as usual, is meaningless.

Situation normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:24 PM

Ron - We went all through this on another thread and I provided the sources you asked for. I don't have time to do it again, but the facts are all over the place. All you need to do is google them.

                   If you are going to try to treat Hispanic voters as a monolithic group I think you are insulting them personally, while at the same time you're insulting the intelligence of the very people you are trying to communicate with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:57 PM

In a time of serious economic depression, the New York Times writes, John McCain's economic proposals make no sense politically or aritnmentically.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:34 PM

"...What excuse is there, in 2008, for a politician who pretends to be a great friend to women while continuing to block any possible legislative changes that might actually improve womenÕs lives?

The wink-wink excuse for McCainÕs hypocrisy, for the contradictions between his good-guy persona and not-so-good-guy politics, is that he has to hold his nose and keep his bread buttered with the religious right. Another explanation is that, like our current good-guy president, McCain is a man blinded by ideology Ð in this case, by that rough-rider rugged individualism thing that he so admires and that is so inimical to real, functional gender equality.

Or it could be something else, something much more basic at work, something that, I think, showed very clearly in McCainÕs expression last week, as he fought, more or less successfully, to suppress a joke and the naughtiest bit of a giggle after reporters demanded a response to remarks by Fiorina in which the clearly unscripted surrogate had complained about the unfairness of health insurers reimbursing Viagra but not birth control.

You could see it in his mouth, in his eyes as, for a full five seconds, McCain worked to remake a face that said, Give me a break, will you? DonÕt you know that I just donÕt care?.

Teddy Roosevelt, remembered today as a big proponent of womenÕs suffrage, admitted in a letter once that, when it came to the womanÕs vote, he too didnÕt really care. ÒPersonally I believe in womanÕs suffrage, but I am not an enthusiastic advocate of it, because I do not regard it as a very important matter,Ó he wrote from the White House in 1908. A big part of the reason: women themselves, he said, appeared to be mostly ÒlukewarmÓ on the issue. ÒI am very certain,Ó he said, Òthat when women as a whole take any special interest in the matter they will have suffrage if they desire it.Ó

McCain, as he casts for votes among HillaryÕs last angry hold-outs, seems to be banking upon finding women who are similarly lukewarm to their interests.

LetÕs hope that heÕs wrong."


(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 06:26 PM

"I provided the sources you asked for" . Yet more drivel.

1) Wording of survey question was not included.

2) " Survey" was several years old---as I pointed out at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jts
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 06:44 PM

Amos,

Are you using a PC? If you paste into "Notepad" then copy paste the result to here, you might be able to eliminate all those crazy extRa characteRs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 11:00 PM

I don't see 'em, even when I go back to an old post. But I can try using Word as an editor and we can see if that helps.

I am using OS X and Safari, a very comfortable combination.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:04 AM

>>I am using OS X and Safari,<<

That's interesting Amos, so am I.

Is yours, by any chance, configured to show Spanish characters?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:33 AM

IT was set to use the US character set. I have just modified the setting to "US Extended". Perhaps that will cure the buggers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM

"THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCainÕs response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

ÒIn a time of war,Ó Mr. McCain said last week, Òthe commander in chief doesnÕt get a learning curve.Ó Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCainÕs attention, you have to wonder if even General CusterÕs learning curve was faster than his. ..."

More here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM

Your cut and paste is translating quotation marks and other suck symbols into vowels with spanish accents.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:29 PM

"The New York Times has rejected an editorial written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper last week."


Always good to know that fair play and equal time won't get in the way of the NYTimes....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:49 PM

Having read McCain's submission, I think that Shipley made a reasonable request. I McCain is going to talk about "Winning" Iraq in the New York Times. He ought to say what he thinks "winning" is.

There is a lot more information in McCain's article about Obama's plan than there is about his own. If McCain were to write an Op Ed piece mirroring Obama's, I would be interested in reading it.

The article Bruce quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:56 PM

BB:

The New York Times made their reasons explicit and they were well-justified editorial reasons--McCain's "op-ed" submission was redundant where Obama's was original.

Just making sure all the relevant factas are on the board here, ya know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM

"Just making sure all the relevant factas are on the board here, ya know.

"

Why? You have never shown such concern when you posted anti-Bush articles.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 03:08 PM

Bruce,

Even it it is true "I am as bad as you." is just not gonna do!

I would suggest that the next time that Amos, or anyone else doesn't do this

"making sure all the relevant factas are on the board here, ya know."

maybe you should simply provide the relevant factas?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:07 PM

The NY Times defends their position

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:34 PM

Bruce:

You are at liberty to start a "Defending the President" thread and place in it all the ratiocination you can find defending Bush and his actions. You should do it soon while there is still some to find. I am sure Teribus will be delighted to share the biurden with you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:35 PM

"There is a lot more information in McCain's article about Obama's plan than there is about his own."


                      He must not have said nothin' at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:37 PM

Not much, but it was all about Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:49 PM

All I can say is, he must be really, really bored!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:02 PM

You can read it here yourself. Its not long.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 11:09 AM

McCain must've failed GEOGRAPHY in school.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 11:12 AM

He looked so old compared to Bush Sr. it wasn't funny.

Looks like Romeny's $46 million dollar campaign debt will win him the VP youth slot on the McCain ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:40 PM

Hey this guy needs a zippy theme song !!!!!!!!!!!

So far Obama is getting all the affection.
McCain needs omething that speaks of youthful vitality and affection.



After one whole quart of brandy
Like a daisy I awake
With no Bromo Seltzer handy,
I don't even shake.

Men are not a new sensation;
I've done pretty well, I think.
But this half-pint imitation
Put me on the blink

REFRAIN

I'm wild again
Beguiled again
A simpering, whimpering child again
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I

Couldn't sleep
And wouldn't sleep
Until I could sleep where I shouldn't sleep
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I

Lost my heart but what of it?
My mistake I agree.
he's a laugh, but I like it
because the laugh's on me.

A pill he is
But still he is
All mine and I'll keep him until he is
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered
Like me.



Seen a lot
I mean I lot
But now I'm like sweet seventeen a lot
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I

I'll sing to him
Each spring to him
And worship the trousers that cling to him
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I

When he talks he is seeking
Words to get off his chest.
Horizontally speaking
He's at his very best.

Vexed again
Perplexed again
Thank God I can't be over-sexed again
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I



(Reprise at the end of the show)

Wise at last
My eyes at last
Are cutting you down to your size at last
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more

Burned a lot
But learned a lot
And now you are broke, though you earned a lot
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more

Couldn't eat
Was dyspeptic
Life was so hard to bear;
Now my heart's antiseptic
Since you moved out of there

Romance-Finis
Your chance-finis
Those ants that invaded my pants-finis
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

Donuel - I was with you right up until the point where the ants invaded his pants.

                                 But what are we looking for to stand in for a melody here?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 11:39 PM

After touching off hot speculation that John McCain was going to rain on Barack ObamaÕs parade of favorable news coverage by disclosing his VP choice this week, conservative columnist Robert Novak now says he may have gotten snookered.

"I got a suggestion from a very senior McCain aide late yesterday afternoon that he was going to announce it this week,'' Novak told Fox News Tuesday. "They didn't want it to come out the way it was going to come out, and they suggested I put it out.

"I then called another senior person who said, 'I can't talk about that, but wouldn't this be a terrific week to announce it, that is with Obama getting the headlines?' So I just put something on the Internet."

"I've since have been told by certain people that this was a dodge, they were trying to get a little publicity to rain on Obama's campaign,'' Novak told Fox. "That's pretty reprehensible if it's true, but we'll find out in a few days. "

Novak has been the vessel through which Republicans have leaked news that has proven controversial before.

Last week, Novak reported that McCain and Phil Gramm had patched up their differences after the former Texas senator caused a dust-up by calling America a "nation of whiners." Novak wrote that Gramm was returning to the McCain campaign but, amid the controversy that followed the disclosure, Gramm quit as a campaign co-chair.

But Novak kicked off a much bigger firestorm with his July 2003, column disclosing the identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame-Wilson. Maybe that was "pretty reprehensible" too?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 12:05 AM

Robert Novak exists to get snookered!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 12:28 AM

Gramm resigns but he is still a Millstone.
Al Malaki endorses Obama.
McCain screws up on his strong suit, twice.
Obama shoots a three.
Novak gets snookered!

Could this week get any better?

Maybe if Tucker Carlson is caught naked in a hotel with James Dobson?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:37 AM

I've figured out what the mysterious bulge in his left cheek is. He's part hamster. Either that or he admires hamsters and is emulating them. There are a number of reasons to admire hamsters, so I think that is probably it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM

You're talking about McCain, right, and not Tucker Carlson or James Dobson. And why have you ruled out snoose?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 12:36 PM

Well, there are many who admire hamsters, aren't there?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM

That's true. And he kind of talks like a hamster too. I mean, like the last time I talked to a hamster, he sounded like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 04:18 PM

Every hamster that ever talked to me started each sentence with "My Friends."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:39 PM

WOW, Amos! I just read your post on 5 April 08 at 0645PM listing the ten "facts" about John McCain Mudcatters might not know. (I'm a slow reader). Your motivation, I'm sure, was to educate us in a objective way.

I thought to myself, 'Now I'm really going to get the "real facts" about my candidate. I read the whole very long post until I was fairly gasping with what you had been able to turn up. Then, at the bottom of the list, you listed your source.

(Move On).

And I got my biggest laugh of the day! Thanks. A good laugh does wonders for a fellow.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:50 PM

DougR:

Your prejudices are flying from the topmast again, my friend. Each one of the statements compiled in that post has a fgootnoted source from which it is drawn. That is the orginal of the individual facts listed. I notice, too, in your haste to have a good sarcastic and belittling lautgh, that you carefully do not answer any of the points raised about McCain in that list. Care to respond tot he issues raised instead of demeaning the wrong source?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 04:19 PM

>>>Then, at the bottom of the list, you listed your source.

Doug, he listed the source before the list. Its a lot of wasted trouble to go back to April for a dig then get the facts wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 10:56 PM

Is that a source?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM

Rig:

Your question is highly ambiguous. As far as the ten items listed concerning McCain, in my April post, the source reference for each is footnoted at the bottom of the post, and they are different references.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:10 AM

Is it just me or hasn't McCain seemed awfully cranky this past week???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

"Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. BushÕs de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. While drama-queen commentators on television last week were busy building up false suspense about the Obama trip Ñ will he make a world-class gaffe? will he have too large an audience in Germany? Ñ few focused on the alarms that Mr. McCainÕs behavior at home raise about his fitness to be president.

Once again the candidate was making factual errors about the only subject he cares about, imagining an Iraq-Pakistan border and garbling the chronology of the Anbar Awakening. Once again he displayed a tantrum-prone temperament ill-suited to a high-pressure 21st-century presidency. His grim-faced crusade to brand his opponent as a traitor who wants to Òlose a warÓ isnÕt even a competent impersonation of Joe McCarthy. Mr. McCain comes off instead like the ineffectual Mr. Wilson, the retired neighbor perpetually busting a gasket at the antics of pesky little Dennis the Menace." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 06:51 PM

Fox "News" is in the tank for McCain

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

McCain has announced his support for a ballot initiative in Arizona that would curtail Affirmative Action, like the one that passed in California.
             This should win him wide spread support from everyone except the black community, where Obama already has over 90% of the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 09:08 PM

Are you saying he was in trouble in Arizona? Does he need to pick up votes there?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 10:45 PM

Not at all, Jack. He is garnishing votes wherever he can get them. He is going to pick up a much larger share of the white working class votes, folks who have seen their fortunes diminished as a result of affirmative action, all over the country.

                  He will be accused of being a flip-flopper by the Deomocratic elite, because he opposed a similar measure in 1998. But the charge won't hold because all he has to do is to announce, "The situation has changed. An African American in the nominee of the Democratic Party." He gets the best of both worlds.

                  It's the same kind of boost he got out of announcing he was changing his postion on off-shore oil drilling.

                  I'm not really a McCain supporter, but I think Obama would be far worse. I guess what I'm saying is, this guy is a really accomplished politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:27 AM

"He is garnishing votes wherever he can get them."

Yeah. That's how the game is played. And what a damn silly game it is. (in my opinion)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:35 AM

For instance: "flip-flopper" - someone who changes his mind.

Now, what would you call someone who never changes his mind?

An idiot. A fanatic. A crazy man. A person incapable of flexibility of thought. A person who cannot adapt to change.

Hitler, for example, seemed to have a very strong tendency to never change his mind...and gee, wasn't he just a terrific national leader???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:37 AM

Rigs,

George Bush was an accomplished politican... We don't need them running the show... We need people who are smart enough and flexible enough to fix broken stuff that accomplished politicans leave in their wake...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM

That's why we need Jesse Ventura!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

And Chongo Chimp!

I'm thinking that Chongo and Jesse should team up, actually, but would Jesse settle for VP?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:49 PM

Well, he was an accomplished liar, but as a politician he was a bloody flat-on-his-face laughingstock and failure.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:52 PM

"John McCain's Negative Attacks Against Barack Obama Hit a Low Mark
July 28, 2008 10:52 AM ET | John Mashek | Permanent Link


In every presidential campaign, candidates of both parties will say something over the line. Sen. John McCain has already hit a low mark.

The senior senator from Arizona said his Democratic rival would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." What's next, an open charge of treason?

McCain and his GOP allies have insisted that Sen. Barack Obama should practically genuflect in front of them and admit he was wrong on the surge in Iraq. Obama declined to bear witness to the surge's success despite the heavy attacks.

For myself, I will acknowledge the surge has helped calm Iraq, thanks to pouring 130,000 more U.S. troops into the Iraqi cities and countryside. But this does not mean the six-year war has been won. Far from it.

In fact, the Iraqi leaders and even President Bush have agreed on a goal of a heavy U.S. drawdown, even though the White House prefers to call it a "general time horizon" rather than a timetable. Talk about a fuzzy description.

McCain still hasn't told us what his oft-called-for victory would look like. Even his friend Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says McCain is treading on thin ground with his personal attack on Obama's motives.

Although the economy is the top issue for voters, McCain continues to emphasize the war. When reminded in an interview about the mounting problems in Afghanistan, McCain said that "there was a lot more work to be done" in that country and returned the focus to Iraq.

Remember Afghanistan? That's the war the Bush administration left far too early to invade Iraq. You haven't heard McCain or many Republicans admit that that was a tremendous error."

...(US News and World Rpeort...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 05:37 PM

"Well, he was an accomplished liar, but as a politician he was a bloody flat-on-his-face laughingstock and failure."



                      I didn't know Chongo was ever in office!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:20 AM

McCain is reminding me more and more of the elder council people in the movie Millenium, staring Kris Kristoferson.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:37 PM

Standing before a room of oil company executives in June, John McCain flip-flopped and declared support for coastal oil drilling. Now the Washington Post is reporting that, within days, oil and gas execs ponied up nearly $1 million to elect McCain.1 It's another piece of evidence that in a McCain White House, oil companies will call the shotsÑjust as they have with President Bush.

Yesterday, MoveOn members jumped into action in response to the Post story, placing "For Sale" signs on McCain headquarters in 10 battleground states to call public attention to it.2 At the same time, McCain made our point for us, holding a photo-op yesterday in front of a California oil well and renewing his push for offshore drilling.3

McCain's hoping to use gas prices as a wedge issue to win the election. That's why it's so critical that we keep spreading the message that McCain's been heavily influenced by the oil companiesÑand so we can't count on him to solve the energy crisis. When people think of Bush, they think "oil," but that's not true of McCain yetÑeven though his energy policy is almost identical to Bush's and his campaign is literally run by oil lobbyists!4

Here's a video that makes the case, from our friends at Progressive Accountability. Please check it out, then forward it to a few friends, post it on a blog, or stick it on your Facebook page.

Twenty-Nine Guesses


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:46 PM

"It's another piece of evidence that in a McCain White House, oil companies will call the shotsÑjust as they have with President Bush."


                     Better for the country, though, than having MoveOn.org calling the shots.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:57 PM

Borowitz - McCain's World (Wide Web) Tour

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:44 PM

McCain Declines Secret Service Security Detail

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:24 AM

So given a chance to reiterate his opposition to tax increases -- and underscore a main contrast with his opponent -- Mr. McCain punted. Democrats were quick to pounce, with the Democratic National Committee issuing a press release headlined, "McCain Tax Pledge? Not so much." It provided citations of the presumptive GOP nominee asserting that "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't." Expect the "nothing's off the table" line to show up in Democratic TV spots this fall.

The wandering candidate also put his chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in an uncomfortable spot. Back in June, the McCain campaign went after Mr. Obama's proposal for a Social Security payroll tax increase on income above $250,000. A President McCain, his adviser then said, wouldn't consider a payroll tax increase "under any imaginable circumstances." So much for that.

Economics has never been Mr. McCain's strong suit, but with Iraq receding as a crisis the economy is the ground where the Senator will have to fight and win. And the tax issue provides him with a potent opening, given Mr. Obama's pledge to raise taxes on incomes, dividends and capital gains. In proposing to raise the payroll tax cap, the Democrat is to the left even of Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain's Sunday blunder will make that issue that much harder to exploit.

Such mistakes also help explain the continued lack of enthusiasm for Mr. McCain among many conservatives. Meeting with us last December, before the primaries, he declared that "I will not agree to any tax increase," repeating the phrase for emphasis. He did not say any tax increase with the exception of Social Security. If Mr. McCain can't convince voters that he's better on taxes than is a Democrat who says matter-of-factly that he wants to raise taxes, the Republican is going to lose in a rout.

WSJ

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to "lose" in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).

Mr. McCain used to pride himself on being above this ugly brand of politics, which killed his own 2000 presidential bid. But he clearly tossed his inhibitions aside earlier this month when he put day-to-day management of his campaign in the hands of one acolyte of Mr. Rove and gave top positions to two others. The résumés of the new team's members included stints in Mr. Bush's White House and in his 2004 re-election campaign, one of the most negative and divisive in memory....
NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:26 AM

"Mr. McCain used to pride himself on being above this ugly brand of politics, which killed his own 2000 presidential bid."


                     Which tells us that he can adjust to change. The idea that you can run a campaign in America and stay out of the pig pen is absolutely laughable. Most of us wish it wasn't that way, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:34 AM

Whenever someone catches Obama engaging in questionable tactics, they explain it away by saying "that's just what politicians do". Then in the next breath they talk about how Obama is new and different from other politicians.

Hope and Change
Hope and Change
Hope and Change

Etc Etc

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:44 AM

Flimsy stuff, Sawz. Anyway, good luck wioth it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:00 PM

I don't see Amos presenting anything to the contrary while he is ducking and dodging questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

What questions were those, Sawz? I've asked several times. It would be nice to tell me what I am avoiding. At least, fair, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: heric
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:56 PM

It was simple. All he had to do was be Grandpa - witty, kind, still of sound mind and naturally possessing strong old fashioned values seasoned by time and experience, of which he had bucketloads. Mostly time, but the POW thing was condensed, supernova experience.

The details of how to pass specific legislation in accordance with latest academic economic or whatever theory are not expected of him. Carter was a detail man. Presidents don't pass legislation, he needed to show he could guide the Executive in stability and honor. That's ALL!!

Well, okay, he had to do one more thing and that was assure that he was no shrub. Easy! Shrub was single-minded. McCain has bi-partisanship Credentials for which he has paid politically, more than once. He could cheerfully hold those up next to Obama, who uses the word like sweet coated candy.

Instead, he was persuaded to suck up to the social conservatives that put Bush in place. Duh - what were they going to do, vote for Obama? He squandered his bipartisan accomplishments in doing so. Maybe he thought he needed it for the money, but for heaven's sake, all he had to do was say no onerous tax raises on the rich and the system feeds itself. (Obama won't rule out 12% FICA on the rich, pushing some of them into more than 50% marginal tax rate.)

He could have done this so easily if he were competent. The Middle was ready to trust him in favor of an unknown. But he caters to the conservative base as if he doesn't understand how the Left and the Middle are sick to death of them.

And now he lets dweebs swift-boat Obama on his behalf, with issues that exercise the hayseeds: Obama dissed wounded soldiers!

The incompetence is staggering. He has the hayseed vote no matter what, and he needs the Middle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:19 PM

"And now he lets dweebs swift-boat Obama on his behalf..."


                   You mean "swift-boat," like what Ludicris did to Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: heric
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:26 PM

McCain PAYS these people. He is supposed to be able to assemble a team. Step 1.


(For those of you who, like me, are not "hip to the scene," google says Ludacris wrote a little jingle that includes: "Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant.")

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:35 PM

LUDACRIS - OBAMA IS HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:48 PM

With friends like that, you don't need enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 06:03 AM

Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 06:14 AM

heric has it nailed. All Obama needs to do is neutralize the Iraq war as an issue and
return the focus to the economy, where McCain's views are now embodied by Gramm in the minds of many, despite his denials.

Obama can point out that the US is now paying doubly--and needlessly--in Iraq. We are paying to maintain our troops there, and we are paying otherwise unemployed military-age men to belong to self-defense organizations.

That money is urgently needed elsewhere--in Afghanistan, and above all, at a time of recession, at home.

And it looks like Obama knows this--and is doing it.

Meanwhile, as I've noted earlier, McCain is trapped. He desperately needs independents--but every time he tries for them his own base threatens to revolt--or stay home.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:20 AM

Yes, McCain has the problem that his extreme base goes to church, whereas Obama's extreme base does not, which renders Obama's base more dependable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 11:00 AM

The most recent MCCain ad never even mentions McCain....

Intstead it starts with video of Brittany and Paris Hilton who America knows for flasjhing their twats and filming their blow jobs.

nice move McCain

McCain can't so I am calling him John McCan't from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM

McCain's True Voice

By David Ignatius
Thursday, July 31, 2008; Page A19

In the dog days of summer, John McCain's political personality has become so fuzzy that even some Republicans are worrying about his viability. But if you want a reminder of why McCain should be a formidable candidate, take another look at his remarkable 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers."

McCain's account is as revealing as Barack Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father." Both candidates have written powerful accounts of their formative experiences. Each tale is woven around the universal theme of fathers and sons. Given the psychological torments that often drive politicians, it's a blessing to have two candidates who have examined their lives carefully and appear to understand their inner demons.

But these two memoirists couldn't have more different stories to tell, and that's what should make the 2008 campaign so interesting. Where Obama describes a quest for an absent father and an African American identity, McCain's early story is about learning to accept the legacy of a famous family where both his father and grandfather were four-star admirals.

McCain was a wild man in his youth, drinking and chasing women like a renegade prince of Navy royalty. He is brutally frank in his description of this protracted adolescence, describing his years at the Naval Academy as "a four-year course of insubordination and rebellion."

McCain's burden, and ultimately his salvation, was the military code of honor that his forefathers embodied. He was from a family of professional warriors, as far back as he could trace his ancestors, and he says this gave him a "reckless confidence" and a sense of fatalism. But it also produced an unshakable bond with his fellow officers and enlisted men -- and to the nation they had pledged to serve. Leadership, the art of guiding men courageously in war, was the family business.

The McCain story converges on his 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. In the conventional telling, it is a tale of heroism -- how McCain refused an offer of early release, how he braved torture year after year, how he turned his insolent anger against his captors.

Certainly all those heroic details are present in McCain's memoir, and in his political appeal this year. The Vietnam legacy of steadfastness motivated him to resist American failure in Iraq and to agitate, sometimes almost alone, for what came to be called the "surge" of U.S. troops. When he says he preferred political defeat for himself to military defeat for his country, he is telling the truth. With an ex-POW's stubbornness, he could not abide the notion of failure and dishonor for U.S. forces.

But what makes McCain's account of his captivity truly remarkable is not the heroism but the humility. In page after page, he praises men who he insists were braver than he was. Though even the toughest prisoners were broken by torture, he cannot forgive himself for signing his own confession: "I shook, as if my disgrace were a fever." He survived through solidarity with other prisoners who were "a lantern of courage and faith that illuminated the way home with honor."

McCain's triumph, finally, was that he got over Vietnam. He didn't fulminate against antiwar activists. ("I have made far too many mistakes in my own life to forever disparage people.") He accepted the ways America had changed in his absence. He didn't bear grudges. He had finally grown up. McCain wrote in a magazine article soon after his homecoming in March 1973: "Now that I'm back, I find a lot of hand-wringing about this country. I don't buy that. I think America today is a better country than the one I left nearly six years ago."

That healing gift is what McCain, at his best, brings to the presidential race -- not the brass marching band of military valor but the tolerance of someone who has truly suffered. It's evident in his achievements as a senator: He had been tortured himself, so he campaigned, against intense pressure from the Bush administration, for a ban on torture; he had been caught as one of the "Keating Five" in a sleazy campaign finance scandal, so he defied his party and became a crusader for campaign finance and ethics reforms.

What's damaging the McCain campaign now, I suspect, is that this fiercely independent man is trying to please other people -- especially a Republican leadership that doesn't really trust him. He should give that up and be the person whose voice shines through the pages of his life story.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:38 PM

WASHINGTON Ñ After spending much of the summer searching for an effective line of attack against Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain is beginning a newly aggressive campaign to define Mr. Obama as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency.

Enlarge This Image

Mary Altaffer/Associated Press
Senator John McCain, speaking Wednesday at a town-hall-style meeting in Aurora, Colo., has begun a campaign to define Senator Barack Obama in negative terms.
Related
On Line: Starry-Eyed Media Breed Green-Eyed Candidates (July 30, 2008)
The Caucus: Obama as ÔCelebrityÕ in McCain Ad (July 30, 2008)
Obama Camp Sees Potential in G.O.P. Discontent (July 31, 2008)
Political Memo: McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some in G.O.P. (July 30, 2008)
Times Topics: John McCain
Times Topics: Barack Obama
Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
Election Guide
More Politics News
On Wednesday alone, the McCain campaign released a new advertisement suggesting Ñ and not in a good way Ñ that Mr. Obama was a celebrity along the lines of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Republicans tried to portray Mr. Obama as a candidate who believed the race was all about him, relying on what Democrats said was a completely inaccurate quotation.

The Republican National Committee began an anti-Obama Web site called ÒAudacity Watch,Ó a play on the title of Mr. ObamaÕs book ÒThe Audacity of Hope.Ó And, in a concerted volley of television interviews, news releases and e-mail, campaign representatives attacked him on a wide range of issues, including tax policies and energy proposals.

The moves are the McCain campaignÕs most full-throttled effort to define Mr. Obama negatively, on its own terms, by creating a narrative intended to turn the public off to an opponent.

Although Mr. Obama has been under an intense public spotlight for the last year, he is still relatively new on the national scene, and polls indicate that for all the enthusiasm he has generated among his supporters, many voters still have questions about him, providing Republicans an opening to shape his image in critical groups like white working-class voters between now and Election Day.

Mr. McCainÕs campaign is now under the leadership of members of President BushÕs re-election campaign, including Steve Schmidt, the czar of the Bush war room that relentlessly painted his opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, as effete, elite, and equivocal through a daily blitz of sound bites and Web videos that were carefully coordinated with Mr. BushÕs television advertisements.

The run of attacks against Mr. Obama over the last couple of weeks have been strikingly reminiscent of that drive, including the Bush teamÕs tactics of seeking to make campaigns referendums on its opponents Ñ not a choice between two candidates Ñ and attacking the opponentÕs perceived strengths head-on. Central to the latest McCain drive is an attempt to use against Mr. Obama the huge crowds and excitement he has drawn, including on his foreign trip last week, by promoting a view of him as more interested in attention and adulation than in solving the problems facing American families. ... (NYT)

---

Gotta love that healing voice...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:41 PM

Just win baby!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:09 AM

" McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." That's just plain dishonest: the U.S. government's own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn't lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an "insignificant" impact on oil prices.

What's even more important than Mr. McCain's bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.

Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn't understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican."

...(Krugman, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:05 AM

Where do you get your ideas from, Mister McCain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:07 AM

So Much for St. John

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, August 1, 2008; Page A17

It's awfully early for John McCain to be running such a desperate, ugly campaign against Barack Obama. But I guess it's useful for Democrats to get a reminder that the Republican Party plays presidential politics by the same moral code that guided the bad-boy Oakland Raiders in their heyday: "Just win, baby."

The latest bit of snarling, mean-spirited nonsense to come out of the McCain camp was the accusation, leveled by campaign manager Rick Davis, that Obama had "played the race card." He did so, apparently, by being black.

On Wednesday, at a campaign stop in Missouri, Obama had predicted that Republicans would try to "make you scared of me. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.' " So what does Davis do? He promptly tries to make voters scared of Obama by feigning outrage over the presumptive Democratic nominee's "divisive, negative, shameful and wrong" remarks.

Of course the McCain campaign isn't really offended that the first black major-party candidate for president in American history might mention this distinction from time to time. The idea is to slow Obama down before he runs away with this thing, and the weapon of choice is handfuls of mud.

Remember St. John the Reformer, who promised a high-minded campaign and said he wouldn't question his opponent's patriotism? Clearly, he's been replaced by an evil twin. The switch seems to have taken place during his opponent's world tour, when Obama's prescriptions for Iraq and Afghanistan began to look prescient -- and McCain's began to look irrelevant.

McCain kept saying that Obama "doesn't understand" the war zones -- even though the president of Afghanistan, the prime minister of Iraq and even U.S. military officials on the ground seemed to think Obama understood both situations quite well. McCain then resorted to the outrageous charge that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." I think that qualifies as an allegation that Obama is "not patriotic enough," don't you?

Since then the McCain campaign has sharply escalated its rhetorical attacks -- making blatantly false claims, for example, about a canceled visit with injured troops in Germany. The blitz has been successful in one of its aims, which is to drive the news cycle and thus focus attention on McCain. Much less clear is whether voters really want to elect Don Rickles as president.

The low point so far is McCain's bizarre ad that flashes images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears before showing Obama in Berlin addressing the multitudes. In what promises to be a major attack theme, the ad derides Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" -- an attempt to turn Obama's popularity into some kind of fatal flaw.

In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Davis and campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt -- a veteran of George W. Bush's 2004 campaign -- kept returning to the word "celebrity" in describing Obama. It's a classic attempt to take a positive and turn it into a negative, as was done with John Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam by the odious Swift boat campaign.

The McCain campaign's excursion into popular culture has been so aggressive that the Obama campaign felt obliged to promptly denounce a new song by Ludacris that criticizes both McCain and Hillary Clinton in crude terms. Never mind that the rapper has no association with Obama's candidacy, and never mind that McCain is probably not intimately familiar with the Ludacris oeuvre. All this gnashing and flailing would be laughable if it weren't so purposeful. The aim is to cast an aura of doubt around Obama -- to portray him as handsome and popular but insubstantial, as a "celebrity" who's not really up to the job. Oh, and not that we would ever mention such a thing, but did you notice that Obama had the audacity to mention that he's African American?

The Obama campaign has been quick to respond with new television ads accusing McCain of practicing the "old politics." Kerry's unhappy experience showed that this kind of define-your-opponent blitzkrieg, however ridiculous the attacks may be, has to be answered immediately -- and in kind.

Negative campaigning is not a pretty thing, and it should be beneath John McCain to stoop so low. But Democrats would be foolish to forget that sometimes it works.

(WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:10 AM

"...McCain, on the other hand, is running a campaign straight out of the playbook that lost the Conservative Party the last three British elections. The old Conservatives thought that if they just kept attacking Labor, the citizens would see the error of their ways.

It didn't work, and it's hard to imagine the American electorate buying McCain's new advertising effort to undermine Obama by accusing him of being a "celebrity" and comparing him -- OMG! -- to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain has made matters worse by falsely accusing Obama of wanting to raise taxes on electricity and by offering a phony account of why Obama decided not to visit wounded American soldiers in Europe.

By running an attack campaign that is almost a parody of George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 exertions, McCain is chucking away his greatest opportunity, which is to show that he could reform Republicanism and offer voters an alternative way of breaking with a past they have come to loathe.

Interestingly, Miliband put himself at the center of Britain's torrid political speculation with an op-ed article in the Guardian on Wednesday suggesting that even an incumbent party can turn itself into a party of change if it understands the fix it's in. "To get our message across, we must be more humble about our shortcomings but more compelling about our achievements," he wrote, noting that Labor "won three elections by offering real change, not just in policy but in the way we do politics. We must do so again."

It's true that Labor's record in Britain is more compelling than Bush's in the United States. That's why it's sad to see Brown, an intelligent and decent man, in such trouble. But Miliband and Cameron both have the right idea: Voters are in a mood to give the status quo a swift kick. Instead of offering puerile ads trashing Obama, McCain should show how he'd be the change we've been waiting for. " (Ibid)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:11 AM

"'...same moral code that guided the bad-boy Oakland Raiders in their heyday: "Just win, baby.'"


                   I thought that was Vince Lombardi

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:06 AM

Good job, Rig--cut right through to the heart of the matter and asked the important questions.....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:54 AM

Well, you know how it is, when a journalist can't get his/her facts right on one part of the story, the reader comes to doubt everything else that is written in the piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

>>Well, you know how it is, when a journalist can't get his/her facts right on one part of the story, the reader comes to doubt everything else that is written in the piece.<<

Your habit of pooh-poohing everything that Amos writes used to show some pinache, but now you aren't even trying. Do you really believe that Vince Lombardi would address someone as "baby"?

Vince is credited with saying "Winning is not the only thing. Its everything."

Al Davis is credited with Just win, baby!

Eugene is a funny and excellent writer. Why don't you try reading the piece with an open mind and stop pulling critiques out of your butt.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 02:34 PM

I love this paragraph.

>>Since then the McCain campaign has sharply escalated its rhetorical attacks -- making blatantly false claims, for example, about a canceled visit with injured troops in Germany. The blitz has been successful in one of its aims, which is to drive the news cycle and thus focus attention on McCain. Much less clear is whether voters really want to elect Don Rickles as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: heric
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 02:59 PM

Did you mean spinache?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 04:48 PM

Did you mean Spanache?

>>> Panache <<<

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:01 PM

Example of impending panache...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:03 PM

"'Vince is credited with saying "Winning is not the only thing. Its everything.'"
    "Al Davis is credited with Just win, baby!"


                        Jack, I think you're right about that. What could I have been thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:59 PM

Deponent sayeth not. The possibilities are ...interesting.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:03 PM

Recent remarks on the latest Blockbuster SFX ad put out by McCain to try and slur Obama:

"his ad was pretty lame. Who are their writers? Every attack ad McCain airs is more and more laughable and immature. The man has no substance- just another empty suit. I hope McCain's backers enjoy watching 2008-12 from the sidelines!

Posted by: Bane | August 01, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Disgraceful. Unfunny. Trying too hard.

Stop wasting our time, McCain. The voters are not stupid. They don't care about your youtube clips, or the Marsha Blackburn Sex Tape, or any of this sideshow garbage. We need a direction. The only candidate worth voting for--Nader--doesn't stand a chance. How we ended up with these two political lightweight, I don't know.

Posted by: Josh Ritter | August 01, 2008 at 01:53 PM
McCain would rather win the slimy way than lose the honest way.

His overall message is not how or why he is good or great for America, but only negative things to say about his opponent.

Is this what 50 plus years of public service have taught you?

Posted by: SonOfHistoryProf | August 01, 2008 at 01:54 PM
well mccain, if you can't inspire anybody,
ridicule the guy who can.

what a small, childish ad this is for someone of mccain's stature to run.

Posted by: haymaker | August 01, 2008 at 01:55 PM
...Razorblade Nicolle? Very funny, or very desparate?

Posted by: Paul Svec | August 01, 2008 at 01:56 PM
So, if Obama is 'the One,' then that makes McCain Satan?
Posted by: Meme | August 01, 2008 at 01:56 PM
I agree with the ad. How dare Obama be inspiring. Who does he think he is? I prefer my political leaders to keep me cynical and dispirited.

Also, I don't like it when foreigners are waving American flags and cheering American leaders. I'm used to the world hating us. It just feels right.
Posted by: Andrew Huston | August 01, 2008 at 01:58 PM
McSameÕs a jealous old coot who failed at being a fighter pilot and has miserably flip-flopped ever since heÕs been in the Senate! Anybody that votes for McSame is an IDIOT!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

"In a video message to donors this evening, Barack Obama's campaign manager said they are responding in an inspiring way to John McCain "taking his campaign into the gutter."

David Plouffe said 200,000 people have given Obama money in the last week -- including 100,000 just on Thursday, with one- third of them new contributors.

McCain's string of attacks have shown that he does not want to talk about the issues, Plouffe said.

While McCain wants to make the campaign about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, "you want to make it about our future," Plouffe told donors in the message.

"I think John McCain has harmed himself in the last week," Plouffe added.

2 COMMENTS SO FAR...
*"I think John McCain has harmed himself in the last week," Plouffe added. *
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Plouffe. I am an independent voter and I was shocked to see how low the McCain camp has sunk. The McCain we have been seeing in this campaign is a far cry from the one who years ago garnered some respect from voters of all stripes. I think he is desperate -- he just doesn't compare well to someone with the character, intelligence, and credentials of Barack Obama.
Posted by Margo August 1, 08 07:39 PM

Your article is totally correct. I gave once to Obama, and now I am giving again. I don't give a lot, only $50 at a time, its all I can afford. But every time I hear one of McCain's ugly, twisted ads, I scrape up some more money and give it to Obama. I ask my friends to do the same, and they are. The final straw that moved me to go beyond my own giving and ask others to contribute was the ad that showed Obama with two white women. It was so obviously designed to push racist hot buttons it made me sick. John McCain, I used to think you were an honorable man, now you are willing to prostitute yourself and your values to become president. Oddly enough, I don't want a prostitute for president."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

Speaking to volunteers at an Orlando phone bank, Obama ribbed McCain for taking the campaign into the gutter. ÒWhen we started this campaign, we were hoping for a more elevated debate. I mean, imagine Ñ at a time when we face more challenges than at any time in our lifetime, these guys are running ads with Paris and Britney,Ó he said. ÒThatÕs frivolous. ItÕs desperate.Ó

Obama said the campaign tactics are a sign of a lack of imagination over at Team McCain. ÒItÕs a sign that they donÕt have anything to offer to the American people so theyÕre just going to try to call folks names like you did in 5th grade,Ó he said. ÒYou remember that, back in 5th grade? You know, peopleÕd be calling each other names and getting into these petty fights. We donÕt have time for that.Ó

One might think that the Illinois Senator, who has two grade-school aged children himself, wouldnÕt want to bring the freshness of youth to the 72-year old McCain, whose age is seen as a liability Ñ although Obama did tell the crowd that McCain Òwants to do the same old thing.Ó Never a bad idea to get the word ÒoldÓ in a McCain riff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:16 PM

This is about McCain...in a roundabout way:

Obama v. McCain

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:40 PM

Recent writers to the editor of the NYT:

"e ÒMcCain Is Trying to Define Obama as Out of TouchÓ (front page, July 31):

Senator Barack Obama is a well-educated, well-spoken man who has just returned from his first visit abroad as a presidential candidate. By all accounts, he was well received Ñ the trip was successful and without incident.

Here in America, the appearance of Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate seems to have thrown some of the more traditional politicians into a tizzy. They must have short memories Ñ both John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton socialized and were photographed with celebrities. And Mr. Clinton is still doing that. Mr. Obama isnÕt, and to insinuate so is just wrong.

Senator John McCain knows better, and it is his reputation that is being damaged by stooping to this level of campaigning.

Joan Baldwin Chapman
Cheshire, Conn., July 31, 2008

¥

To the Editor:

The Straight Talk Express has permanently derailed. Launching shameful attacks with no basis is typical Republican Party desperation tactics. These attacks have only solidified Senator John McCainÕs persona as the third disastrous Bush presidency.

David Walker
North Dartmouth, Mass.


July 31, 2008"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:02 PM

I fail to see why lack of charisma, lack of popularity, lack of communicative ability, lack of coherent policy and lack of understanding things like economics and energy policy should be things to be admired in a candidate. Nor why the presence of these characteristics should be a basis for attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:11 PM

Nor do I, Dick. It's hard to imagine why Obama has any support at all--except for Ludacris, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM

Obama has all those things. Rig; you are being vituperous again.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:54 PM

Not intentionally--at least, I don't think so!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

John McCainÕs Chilling Project for America

EMAIL      PRINT      SHARE
Posted on Jun 12, 2008


AP photo / LM Otero
By Elliot Cohen

John McCain has long been a major player in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple wars. The credo of this group is Òthe end justifies the means,Ó and the end of establishing the United States as the worldÕs sole superpower justifies, in its estimation, anything from military control over the information on the Internet to the use of genocidal biological weapons. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it.

The Road Map to War

The blueprint for this Ònew orderÓ was drafted in February 1992, at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration when Defense Department staffers Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad, acting under then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). This document, also known as the ÒWolfowitz Doctrine,Ó was an unofficial, internal document that advocated massive increases in defense spending for purposes of strategic proliferation and buildup of the military in order to establish the pre-eminence of the United States as the worldÕs sole superpower. Advocating pre-emptive attacks with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, it proclaimed that Òthe U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.Ó The document was also quite clear about what should be the United StatesÕ main objective in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iraq and Iran, which was to Òremain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the regionÕs oil.Ó The Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post, which published excerpts from it. Amid a public outcry, President George H.W. Bush retracted the document, and it was substantially revised.

The original mission of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was not lost, however. In 1997, William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a nongovernment political action organization that sought to develop and advocate for the militant, geopolitical tenets contained in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. PNACÕs original members included Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, Libby, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, and other soon-to-be high officers in the Bush administration.

McCainÕs Ties to PNAC

John McCainÕs connection to PNAC can be traced back to before its formation in 1997. In fact, he was president of the New Citizenship Project, founded by Kristol in 1994. This organization was parent to PNAC, and served as its chief fundraising organ.

... (See complete article on this site.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:23 PM

Is John McCain losing it?

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.

He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.
..." (WSJ column)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: ToulouseCruise
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:01 PM

Have you seen Paris Hilton's response to his "celebrity" ad?

Paris for Prez?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:05 PM

>>Have you seen Paris Hilton's response to his "celebrity" ad?

Yeah, I think most have. There is a thread.

We'll always have Paris.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: ToulouseCruise
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

Oops, missed that.... been a while since I have been around the 'Cat lately, didn't read enough down the threads list!

Brian.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 12:13 PM

So why isn't Obama romping? The obvious answer — and both the excessively genteel Obama campaign and a too-compliant press bear responsibility for it — is that the public doesn't know who on earth John McCain is. The most revealing poll this month by far is the Pew Research Center survey finding that 48 percent of Americans feel they're "hearing too much" about Obama. Pew found that only 26 percent feel that way about McCain, and that nearly 4 in 10 Americans feel they hear too little about him. It's past time for that pressing educational need to be met.

What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president's response to Katrina; he fought the "agents of intolerance" of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.

With the exception of McCain's imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.

McCain never called for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired and didn't start criticizing the war plan until late August 2003, nearly four months after "Mission Accomplished." By then the growing insurgency was undeniable. On the day Hurricane Katrina hit, McCain laughed it up with the oblivious president at a birthday photo-op in Arizona. McCain didn't get to New Orleans for another six months and didn't sharply express public criticism of the Bush response to the calamity until this April, when he traveled to the Gulf Coast in desperate search of election-year pageantry surrounding him with black extras.

McCain long ago embraced the right's agents of intolerance, even spending months courting the Rev. John Hagee, whose fringe views about Roman Catholics and the Holocaust were known to anyone who can use the Internet. (Once the McCain campaign discovered YouTube, it ditched Hagee.) On Monday McCain is scheduled to appear at an Atlanta fund-raiser being promoted by Ralph Reed, who is not only the former aide de camp to one of the agents of intolerance McCain once vilified (Pat Robertson) but is also the former Abramoff acolyte showcased in McCain's own Senate investigation of Indian casino lobbying.

Though the McCain campaign announced a new no-lobbyists policy three months after The Washington Post's February report that lobbyists were "essentially running" the whole operation, the fact remains that McCain's top officials and fund-raisers have past financial ties to nearly every domestic and foreign flashpoint, from Fannie Mae to Blackwater to Ahmad Chalabi to the government of Georgia. No sooner does McCain flip-flop on oil drilling than a bevy of Hess Oil family members and executives, not to mention a lowly Hess office manager and his wife, each give a maximum $28,500 to the Republican Party.

While reporters at The Post and The New York Times have been vetting McCain, many others give him a free pass. Their default cliché is to present him as the Old Faithful everyone already knows. They routinely salute his "independence," his "maverick image" and his "renegade reputation" — as the hackneyed script was reiterated by Karl Rove in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column last week. At Talking Points Memo, the essential blog vigilantly pursuing the McCain revelations often ignored elsewhere, Josh Marshall accurately observes that the Republican candidate is "graded on a curve."

Most Americans still don't know, as Marshall writes, that on the campaign trail "McCain frequently forgets key elements of policies, gets countries' names wrong, forgets things he's said only hours or days before and is frequently just confused." Most Americans still don't know it is precisely for this reason that the McCain campaign has now shut down the press's previously unfettered access to the candidate on the Straight Talk Express.

To appreciate the discrepancy in what we know about McCain and Obama, merely look at the coverage of the potential first ladies. We have heard too much indeed about Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis, her pay raises at the University of Chicago hospital, her statement about being "proud" of her country and the false rumor of a video of her ranting about "whitey." But we still haven't been inside Cindy McCain's tax returns, all her multiple homes or private plane. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that Hensley & Company, the enormous beer distributorship she controls, "lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety," in opposition to groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The McCain campaign told The Times that Mrs. McCain's future role in her beer empire won't be revealed before the election.

Some of those who know McCain best — Republicans — are tougher on him than the press is. Rita Hauser, who was a Bush financial chairwoman in New York in 2000 and served on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in the administration's first term, joined other players in the G.O.P. establishment in forming Republicans for Obama last week. Why? The leadership qualities she admires in Obama — temperament, sustained judgment, the ability to play well with others — are missing in McCain. "He doesn't listen carefully to people and make reasoned judgments," Hauser told me. "If John says 'I'm going with so and so,' you can't count on that the next morning," she complained, adding, "That's not the man we want for president."...

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 05:21 PM

Amos,

Doesn't bill Kristol write editorials for the (nyt)? When you cut and paste. I'd like to see the name of the author and the title of the piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 05:29 PM

Sorry. Yes, he is their token Conservative. They have one other, as well, whose name escapes me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

A bad choice, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:28 PM

Why?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:37 PM

Kristol,

Should not be writing for the Times. He is the opposite of journalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 07:43 PM

Yes, Jack. We can agree on that. One needs to look into the history of how he got the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:08 PM

An interesting question. I think he is a hack, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:02 PM

Well there doesn't seem to be any question about how important he thinks he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:06 AM

On Sunday, the New York Times front-paged a profile of McCain's response to 9/11: to retaliate not only against Al Qaeda -- but also Iraq, Iran, and Syria. "Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America's security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new 'opportunity' to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq."

"To his admirers, Mr. McCain's tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border. His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region. 'He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,' said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. 'Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.'"

MSNBC

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:12 PM

..."Second, John McCain is not a typical Republican. Sunday's Times had part of the answer to its front-page story on its Op-Ed page, in Frank Rich's column:

It seems almost churlish to look at some actual facts. No presidential candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004 or 2000. Obama's average lead of three to four points is marginally larger than both John Kerry's and Al Gore's leads then (each was winning by one point in Gallup surveys). Obama is also ahead of Ronald Reagan in mid-August 1980 (40 percent to Jimmy Carter's 46). At Pollster.com, which aggregates polls and gauges the electoral count, Obama as of Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still lose the election.

Rich goes on.

What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president's response to Katrina; he fought the "agents of intolerance" of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.

With the exception of McCain's imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.

The only people who disliked the 2000-era version of John McCain (McCain 2.000) were, well, Republicans. McCain 2.008 has worked assiduously to earn their acceptance and they've given it, grudgingly. But just as Obama is still largely unknown, so is the current iteration of John McCain.

"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:22 PM

"The NYT's David Kirkpatrick had a very strong piece yesterday on John McCain's foreign policy worldview, his embrace of neoconservatism, and his response to the attacks of 9/11. It applies a little more scrutiny than McCain is probably accustomed to receiving.

[By the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001], Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

"There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked," Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. "It isn't just Afghanistan," he added, on MSNBC. "I don't think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared," he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. "Very obviously Iraq is the first country," he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: "Next up, Baghdad!"

Just to clarify, by October 2001, McCain was already a cheerleader for invading Iraq. This was his reflexive response to the terrorism perpetrated by al Qaeda. ..." (Steve Benen quoting D. Kirkpatrick)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:46 PM

"What if there was a vote to decide if $13.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies should go into oil alternatives, like solar and wind? What would you want your Senator to do?

Well, as you probably guessed, there was such a vote. We needed 60 votes to prevail, and 59 of them were in. But John McCain ducked the vote.1

As a result, instead of powering millions of homes with clean energy and building next-generation solar technology, we're giving ExxonMobil and other companies billions in tax breaks at a time when they're already making record profits.

This vote is political dynamite. And if we all pitch in, we can make sure voters know about McCain's give-away to big oil. And it's a twofer—we'll run the ad in the battleground state of North Carolina to help remind voters that Senator Elizabeth Dole, who's up for re-election, voted for big oil tax breaks, too.

Check out the ad here:



The ad links Republican support for oil tax breaks with the campaign contributions they're taking from the oil companies.

Exposing their favors for big oil can puncture Republican promises to help people hurting from high gas prices.

Our ad can help defeat McCain, win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and promote real solutions to the energy crisis. " (MoveOn.org)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:51 PM

Does anybody really expect MoveOn.org to find solutions to anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 08:22 PM

Don't be silly Rig. They have a solution, get rid of McCain and Dole.

But I think its a waste of money for them to run that ad in North Carolina. Swing voters won't trust them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:33 PM

I'm beginning to think they have a 7% solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 04:24 PM

Oh, honey, next week I have to go to Atlanta- Do we have a house there?

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:33 PM

How many houses do you have, McSame?!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:51 PM

At least he didn't have to make a deal with a convicted gangster to buy them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:54 PM

How do you know that, Rigs??? I mean, if the guy dosen't even know how many houses he has he might not have a clue how he got 'um???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 08:23 PM

ITS NOT MERELY SEVEN HOMES, the one on Hidden Ranch Road has seven buildings by itself. Look at the cover of Architectural digest with McCain showing off one of his mansions. btw at the picnic look, he's eating cous cous!

A private jet, wife #trophy has 60 million in Budwieser stock that went up with the Inbev buyout, part ownership of the Diamondback team, and $100 million in liquid cash. I can go on...

To use a quote by his economic advisor Phil Graham, "I have more than I need but not as many as I want."

btw Phil Graham invested in a porno movie studio heavily in the 70's.
ain't that a hooter?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 08:24 PM

I hear Obama is consorting with a convicted President as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 09:38 PM

Was there a convicted president? I thought Ronald Reagan skated on Iran-Contra.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 10:37 AM

"The fact that McCain couldn't remember how many mansions he has proves how elitist and divorced from economic reality he truly is. That's why McCain admitted economics is not his strongest suit, and why he offered a budget plan that would create the largest debt in our country since World War II. That's why he proposed tax hikes on employer-based health care, doesn't know the price of gas, and has no appreciation for the struggles of hard-working Americans facing foreclosure.

This reminds me of when George Bush, Sr. didn't know the price of a carton of milk or how to use a supermarket checkout counter machine. It was a story the media seized because it illustrated just how out of touch a candidate could be on the economy. "

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/49248-mccain-s-mansions-the-houses-that-greed-built

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 01:06 PM

"The fact that McCain couldn't remember how many mansions he has proves "


1. Most are not "mansions", like the one Obama has.

2. He did not know how many his WIFE and her various interests owned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 06:46 PM

John McCain not only would make a terrible president but is a very poor role model for
democracy. His "war hero" status is questionable because the war that he fought in was
questionable and there is a monument in Washington to the dead that it created.

When will these sanguinary politicians realize that America's interest is not served
in trying to police the world through violence and fear-mongering?

McCain is one of the fear-mongers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 12:00 AM

>>>Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 01:06 PM

"The fact that McCain couldn't remember how many mansions he has proves "


1. Most are not "mansions", like the one Obama has.<<<

True enough, for one thing "most" are not in Chicago. But why would the have houses that weren't expensive?

You're right in that they are not like Obama's, They are way more expensive. You can buy two and half houses like mine for the difference between the average value of McCain's and the value of Obama's. And McCain calls Obama the elitist.

Seven houses worth 13 million dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 12:09 AM

Yeah Bruce, the McCain's would never have an extravagant house.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:11 AM

"John McCain not only would make a terrible president but is a very poor role model for democracy."


                   Probably true, but many of us think Obama would make a worse president. Not very good choices, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

Ya know,. most of my friends, if they had been put in the slammer for 5 1/2 years for throwing bombs, would not feel qualified to run for dogcatcher, let alone the Senate.

Ironic country we live in.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:23 PM

This is the USA. Throwing bombs is what we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 02:13 PM

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-62889

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 03:27 PM

Some popular McPain bum stickers

Which lane McCain?
RIGHT ALL THE WAY

Explain McCain
...Bush 4

McCain feels
no Pain

McCain's SS#
is 8

McCain's brain on drugs
pic of Paris Hilton

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 03:28 PM

"McCain is OK"

Pretty lukewarm endorsement in a genre where exaggeration is the stock in trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 05:09 PM

Today McCain attacked Obama's patriotism for his speach in Berlin.

The unbroken tradition of not stepping on the other party's convention may be broken by McCain this Friday.
There are reports that he plans to announce his VP Thursday night or Friday morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 11:32 PM

He's already stepped on the convention. He was on Leno last night.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 11:58 PM

MCCain's attacks on Obama are mindless rabid froth. He seems not to have the decency OR the brains to go to the issues. His talents are in crashing airplanes and misunderstanding situations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 08:18 AM

I have heard that McCain has a really ugly temper...but I have never seen it. Part of his training may have been to say "my friends as a trigger to settle down.

How about engineering a "Perry Mason" moment or a Jack Nicholson moment of "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH" so that America could see his famous temper.

A clever Obama might press his buttons in such a way as to let John blow up on TV.

I don't know if it would help or hurt Barack but I am curious about this McCain temper rumor.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 08:54 AM

"McCain is OK: Pretty lukewarm endorsement in a genre where exaggeration is the stock in trade."


                      And that's true. Many of us have trouble getting excited about McCain; it's just that Obama is much, much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 09:28 AM

You're sure mistaken about that. He is by far the better candidate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:06 AM

McCain has serious problems. He desperately needs more than just Republican votes-- but when he ventures to try to appeal to independents--on global warming, campaign finance reform etc., his own base threatens to desert---or stay home.

Meanwhile his stands which do appeal to the base--Roe v Wade, taxes, etc.--are exactly those which turn off independents.

His predicament is clearly seen in the VP situation. The WSJ editorial page doesn't like any of the potential candidates--even Romney, which they see as alienating evangelicals because of Romney's Mormonism.   Even Pawlenty--strongest choice, they say--is not simon-pure on taxes. He didn't raise taxes as governor--but raised fees, the same thing in their book.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:07 AM

"whom they see..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:11 AM

Furthermore, McCain has very few people passionately for him at this point. Telling a pollster you would vote is very different from actually voting. The passion seems lopsidedly on Obama's side--and that's what determines turnout--which is what any election is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 08:23 AM

Well, hopefully things will change!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:08 AM

Yes, things will change.

BArack Obama and Joe Lieberman will take the White House in November, and McCain's version of over-boiled-and-wrinkled politics by division only will fade into history. George Bush's politics by the oil, of the oil, and for the oil will fade as well.

THings will change, and, I believe, for the better. But they will change because people of genuinely good conscience and intelligence decided to step in and help make those changes. Not because they sat around making snarky remarks, practicing carpery and snidity as the best they could come up with.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:35 AM

Obama and Joe Lieberman? Tell me it ain't so, Joe...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:37 AM

SOrry for the typo, it ain't so. I meant Joe Biden; and I should never post before coffee.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:57 AM

McCain is trying to distance himself from the many Bush crimes but as soon as the Bush truck stops it will blow up and demand McCain to put out the fire and grant presidential pardons.
http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/don1/roveleak.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:58 AM

Truck

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:29 PM

John McCain's Chilling Project for America
By Elliot Cohen

John McCain has long been a major player in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple wars. The credo of this group is "the end justifies the means," and the end of establishing the United States as the world's sole superpower justifies, in its estimation, anything from military control over the information on the Internet to the use of genocidal biological weapons. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it.

The Road Map to War

The blueprint for this "new order" was drafted in February 1992, at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration when Defense Department staffers Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad, acting under then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). This document, also known as the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," was an unofficial, internal document that advocated massive increases in defense spending for purposes of strategic proliferation and buildup of the military in order to establish the pre-eminence of the United States as the world's sole superpower. Advocating pre-emptive attacks with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, it proclaimed that "the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests." The document was also quite clear about what should be the United States' main objective in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iraq and Iran, which was to "remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." The Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post, which published excerpts from it. Amid a public outcry, President George H.W. Bush retracted the document, and it was substantially revised. 

The original mission of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was not lost, however. In 1997, William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a nongovernment political action organization that sought to develop and advocate for the militant, geopolitical tenets contained in the Wolfowitz Doctrine.  PNAC's original members included Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, Libby, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, and other soon-to-be high officers in the Bush administration. 

McCain's Ties to PNAC

John McCain's connection to PNAC can be traced back to before its formation in 1997.  In fact, he was president of the New Citizenship Project, founded by Kristol in 1994. This organization was parent to PNAC, and served as its chief fundraising organ. 

McCain also worked cooperatively with PNAC and Wolfowitz in attempting to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act—drafted by PNAC—which decreed "regime change" in Iraq to be U.S. policy, and which appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid to the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising against Hussein. It was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant whose subsequent faulty intelligence—claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida—was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public. In 2004, in response to accusations that he deliberately misled U.S. intelligence agencies, Chalabi glibly stated, "We are heroes in error."

McCain also was co-chair (with Sen. Joseph Lieberman) of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in late 2002, this committee continued to finance Chalabi's INC with millions of taxpayer dollars, until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it was discontinued. In 2004, McCain became a signatory of PNAC, ironically signing on to a PNAC letter condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's foreign policy for its return to the "rhetoric of militarism and empire."

McCain has accordingly been a foot soldier for PNAC from its inception, and, although this organization is no longer in existence, its ideology and its signatories (many of whom now serve as advisers to the McCain presidential campaign) are still very much active. 

The Master Plan

In September 2000, prior to the presidential election that year, PNAC carefully formulated its chief tenets in a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD). This document, which was intended to guide the incoming administration, had a substantial influence on the policies set by the Bush administration and is likely to do the same for a McCain administration if McCain becomes president. Here are some of the recommendations of the RAD report:

Fighting and winning multiple, simultaneous major wars

Among its core missions was the rebuilding of America's defenses sufficient to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." And it explicitly advocated sending troops into Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power. According to RAD, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The RAD report also admonished, "Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." Therefore, it had both Iraq and Iran in its sight as zones of multiple, simultaneous major wars for purposes of advancing "longstanding American interests in the region"—in particular, its oil.

McCain's recent chanting of "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran" to the beat of an old Beach Boys tune, his suggestion that the war with Iraq might last 100 years and his recent statement that the war in Afghanistan might also last 100 years—all of these pronouncements are clearly in concert with the PNAC mission to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."

RAD also stressed the need to have additional forces equipped to handle ongoing "constabulary" duties such as enforcement of no-fly zones and other operations that fell short of full theater wars. It claimed that unless the military was so equipped, its ability to fight and win multiple, simultaneous wars would be impaired.  Along these same lines, McCain has recently stated, ''It's time to end the disingenuous practice of stating that we have a two-war strategy when we are paying for only a one-war military. Either we must change our strategy—and accept the risks—or we must properly fund and structure our military.''


Designing and deploying global missile defense systems

RAD also emphasized, as an additional core value, the need to "transform U.S. forces to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs.' " This included the design and deployment of a global ballistic missile defense system consisting of land-, sea-, air- and space-based components said to be capable of shielding the U.S. and its allies from "limited strikes" in the future by "rogue" nations such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran.

Along these lines, McCain has maintained that a ballistic missile defense system was "indispensable"—even if this meant reneging on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 at the expense of angering the Russians.  Unfortunately, while RAD acknowledged the "limited" efficacy of such a weapons system (presumably because it cannot realistically provide a bulletproof shield, especially against large-scale missile attacks), neither it nor McCain addressed the problem that deployment of such a system could be destabilizing: It could encourage escalation, instead of de-escalation, of ballistic missile arsenals by nations that fear becoming sitting ducks, and might even provoke a pre-emptive strike. Further, there is still the question of whether the creation of such costly, national defense shields is even technologically feasible.

The use of genocidal biological warfare for political expediency

Not only did RAD advocate the design and deployment of defensive weaponry, it also stressed the updating of conventional offensive weapons including cruise missiles along with stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. But it went further in its offensive posture by envisioning and supporting the use of genotype-specific biological warfare. According to RAD, "… advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." In this chilling statement, a double standard is evident. In the hands of al-Qaida, such genocidal weapons would belong to "the realm of terror," but in those of the U.S., they would be "politically useful tools."

Rejection of the United Nations

PNAC's double standard is also inherent in its rejection of the idea of a cooperative, neutral effort among the nations of the world to address world problems, including the problem of Iraq. "Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality," states the RAD report. "The preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat." Accordingly, a McCain administration founded on a PNAC platform of self-interested exercise of force would oppose giving the United Nations any central role in setting and implementing foreign affairs policy.

Control of space and cyberspace

PNAC's quest for global domination transcends any literal meaning of the geopolitical, and extends also to the control, rather than the sharing, of outer space. It also has serious implications for cyber freedom. Thus the RAD report states, "Much as control of the high seas—and the protection of international commerce—defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. ... Access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons.' "

There is a difference between protecting the Internet from a cyber attack and controlling it. The former is defensive while the latter is offensive. But RAD also advocated going on the offensive. It stated that "an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner."

However, state control of cyberspace for political purposes can have serious implications for the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The Bush administration has already engaged in mass illegal spying on the phone and e-mail messages of millions of Americans through its National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. As a result of copying these messages and depositing them into an NSA computer database, it began to assemble a massive "Total Information Awareness" computer network. The FBI has also begun to develop and integrate such personal data with a biometric database that includes digital iris prints and facial images. Combine this with other computerized databases including credit card information, banking records and health files, and the result is an incredible ability to exercise power and control over anyone deemed by a political leader to be an "adversary"—including journalists, political opponents and others who might not see eye to eye with the administration.

In concert with the PNAC mission of control over cyberspace, McCain has supported making warrantless spying on American citizens legal. When asked if he believed that Bush's warrantless surveillance program was legal, McCain responded, "You know, I don't think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this out. ... I think they will get that authority, whatever is reasonable and needed, and increased abilities to monitor communications are clearly in order."

Consistent with his conviction that such extended powers should be granted to the president, McCain has also recently voted for Senate Bill S.2248, which vacates substantial civil liberties protections included in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In contrast to the 1978 FISA, S.2248 would allow the president, acting through the attorney general, to spy on the phone and e-mail communications of Americans without individual court warrants or the need to judicially show probable cause. 

Despite the fact that McCain has said that Bush's NSA spying program was not legal, he has also supported granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecommunication companies (such as AT&T and Verizon) that helped Bush illegally spy on millions of Americans. This means that he has openly admitted that the Bush administration acted unlawfully in eavesdropping on Americans' phone and e-mail messages, while at the same time opted for taking away their legal right to redress this violation. And this unequivocally means that McCain is prepared to allow executive authority to trump the rule of law.

Meet the McCain Team

Given John McCain's firm allegiance to the core missions of PNAC, it should come as no surprise that many of the old PNAC guard have shown up as foreign policy advisers in McCain's current presidential campaign, and are likely re-emerge as high officials in his administration if he becomes president. Here are snapshots of some of these potential members of a McCain Cabinet, giving their PNAC profiles, their advisory capacities in the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and their politics.

William Kristol
Editor and founder of Washington-based political magazine, Weekly Standard.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has consistently been wrong in his foreign policy analyses regarding Iraq. For example, on March 5, 2003, he stated, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

Robert Kagan
Served in State Department in Reagan administration on Policy Planning Staff.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has defended global expansionism by claiming it is an American tradition: "Americans' belief in the possibility of global transformation—the 'messianic' impulse—is and always has been the more dominant strain in the nation's character."

Randy Scheunemann
Former adviser to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Co-director and executive director of Committee for Liberation of Iraq.
Defense and foreign policy coordinator.
With regard to recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, stated "a careful reading of the NIE indicates that it is misleading." And he claimed that the NIE harmed our efforts to achieve a "greater diplomatic consensus" to crack down on Iran.

James Woolsey
Director of CIA, Clinton administration, 1993-1995. (Reported to have met only twice with Clinton during time as CIA chief.)
PNAC signatory.
Energy and national security adviser.
Speaking to a group of college students in 2003 about Iraq, he stated that "… the United States is engaged in World War IV." Described the Cold War as the third world war. Then said, "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."

John R. Bolton
Former U.S. ambassador to U.N. (Nomination to U.N. rejected by Senate, but George W. Bush put him in place on a recess appointment. Name floated for possible secretary of state for McCain.
PNAC director.
Ardent supporter of McCain for president in 2009.
Publicly derided the United Nations: In 1994, he stated "there is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along." Advocates attacking Iran.

Robert B. Zollick
President, World Bank.
PNAC signatory.
Announced in 2006 he would be joining McCain presidential campaign for domestic and foreign policy but instead replaced Wolfowitz as president of World Bank in 2007.
Has touted virtues of corporate globalization under the rubric of "comprehensive free trade." But as Kevin Watkins, head researcher for Oxfan, stated, he pays no heed to the effects of the "blind pursuit of US economic and corporate special interests" on the world's poor.

Gary Schmitt
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (home to other PNAC members including Wolfowitz and Pearle.)
PNAC director.
Foreign policy adviser.
Defended warrantless eavesdropping on Americans by claiming that Constitution "created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens."

Richard L. Armitage
Former deputy secretary of state in George W. Bush administration.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
By his own admission, was responsible for leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the press. Allegedly involved in Iran-Contra affair during Reagan administration.

Max Boot
Council on Foreign Relations.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
Stating that U.S. should "unambiguously ... embrace its imperial role," has advocated attacking other Middle East countries in addition to Iraq and Iran, including Syria. Said McCain's "bellicose aura" could "scare the snot out of our enemies," who "would be more afraid to mess with him" than with other then-potential presidential candidates.

Henry A. Kissinger
President Nixon's secretary of state.
Embraces expansionist power politics.
Consultant.
Played major role in secret bombings of Cambodia during Nixon administration as well as having had alleged involvement in covert assassination plots and human rights violations in Latin America.

What's in Store for Us if McCain Becomes President

That McCain has surrounded himself with such like-minded advisers who support the narrow PNAC agenda speaks to his unwillingness to hear and consider alternative perspectives. In fact, six out of 10 civilian foreign advisers to McCain are PNAC veterans. Even the newly appointed deputy communications director of the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfard, has been a research associate for PNAC. A die-hard adherent of the "unitary authority" of the chief executive, he recently stated that the framers of the United States Constitution advocated an "executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war."

Add to this list other major PNAC figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Dick Cheney who would probably play a significant role in a McCain administration and it is clear in what direction this nation would be moving.

A McCain administration would be likely to:


•   Invest incredible amounts of money in sustaining multiple, simultaneous wars overseas at the expense of neglecting pressing concerns at home, including the economy, health care, the environment and education.

• Stockpile nuclear weapons, while seeking to prohibit its adversaries from having them.
Attempt to shield the U.S. with a multilayered missile defense system based on land, at sea, in the air and in space, while demanding that nations that are not its allies become sitting ducks.

• Strive to develop more potent chemical and biological weapons—not to mention the genotype-specific variety, while at the same time claiming to be fighting a "war on terror."

• Legalize "Total Information Awareness"—going through all Americans' phone calls, e-mail messages and other personal records without needing probable cause.

• Take control of the Internet, globally using it as an offensive political weapon—while claiming to be spreading democracy throughout the world. 

• Dispense with checks and balances in favor of the "unitary executive authority" of the president.

• Alienate nations that refuse to join our war coalitions.

• Deny that there is (or can be) a United Nations.

A McCain administration would rule by fear, perceive right in terms of military might and subscribe to the idea of "do as I say and not as I do." As a consequence, instead of rebuilding the image of America as a model of justice and civility, it would further sully respect for this nation throughout the world.

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., is a political analyst and media critic. His most recent book is "The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship." He was first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page4/20080612_john_mccains_chilling_project_for_america/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:22 AM

But it turns out that Bush himself has not spoken to McCain since May, when the two met briefly for 14 seconds on a tarmac. And before that, not since March, when the two walked out onto the colonnade of the White House to announce the president's endorsement.

That's because, according to this coming Sunday's New York Times, the two sides have "a relationship fraught with bitter resentment, grudging respect and mutual dependence." In short, the two need each other.

Bush, smarting over McCain's criticisms of his handling of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, needs a McCain victory to validate his legacy, says author Peter Baker.

And McCain, who hasn't forgotten how the Bush forces pelted him with negative ads in the South Carolina primary in 2000, needs the president's core supporters to go to the polls. Without them, the 72-year-old McCain has an uphill battle to beat a 47-year-old Democrat with lots of money and star power who is running against an unpopular president in what looks to be a Democratic year.

Of course if McCain does pull this off, he and Bush will likely talk again. On Inauguration Day.

-- Johanna Neuman (LAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:32 AM

"OHN MCCAIN: A MATTER OF CHARACTER

John Chuckman

McCain does a good job with the appearance of a boyishly honest man.

He puts on his quiet voice and uses his boyish (albeit now partially fossilized) expressions and, reminding me of Richard Nixon during something like his Checkers speech, sometimes glances down at his well-shined shoes, as though wordlessly to say, see what a good boy I am.

McCain's actual record of ethics and behavior is rather dreary, and it is a subject which mysteriously eludes treatment in mainline media which seem always ready to treat trivia like flag pins. There are many parallels of insensitivity, anger, aggression, limited capacities, and grotesque humor with George Bush.

McCain was, quite simply, a nasty brat as a young man. There are many stories of the way he bullied others, including teachers, stories perhaps easy to make light of fifty years later, but not funny if you were his victim and, more importantly, all too similar to stories of his adult behavior. He was a poor student. He always took advantage of being the son and grandson of admirals to get away with his sometimes vicious antics and failures.

Despite his favorite public act as boyish fighter pilot, he apparently remains an often nasty man in private. Many fellow politicians, including Republicans, testify to his furious, spluttering temper and the use of the most obscene words to friends and work associates with whom he is unhappy. There is also the story, related by a Republican, of his sudden physical attack on a member of the government of Nicaragua during a Congressional mission.

When McCain's being shot down in Vietnam is discussed, the fact that he was bombing civilians is almost never mentioned. He's just lucky he survived. He might well have been torn limb from limb had he been a Vietnamese pilot shot down in Texas.

How did he survive being shot down? After all, he landed in a body of water and he was hurt. A group of local villagers, and one Vietnamese man in particular, Mai Van On, left their bomb shelters and pulled McCain from the water where he would certainly have drowned otherwise.

That brave and decent Vietnamese man, whom McCain once acknowledged, died recently, a very disheartened man that McCain never showed any real sign of thanks or reciprocity. His wife has spoken to the press on this. After all, in many cultures, someone's saving your life creates a powerful bond or debt, but apparently not for John McCain.

Apart from some fitting communication from the man who went on to become famous, imagine how even a little money order from this well-off man could have altered the lives of those who saved him?

When McCain returned home to the wife who had waited for him for the five and a half years he was in prison, he discovered his wife had been in a terrible car accident in which she was disfigured.

Instead of compassion and loyalty, McCain started a series of affairs, ending with wealthy future wife Cindy.

He left his crippled wife to marry the money. It was a pretty shabby display, reminiscent of Newt Gingrich's telling a wife dying of cancer he was divorcing her, but it did considerably help finance his political career.

During the great savings-and-loan scandals, McCain was at the center, having got a lot of money and favors from (to-be convicted felon) Charles Keating.

McCain's second wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, by her own admission. She also stole a large quantity of drugs from a charity for which she did volunteer work to feed her habit, an act which would earn you or me hard time in prison in Bush's America.

You do have to ask about the mental state of a woman who is said to be worth $300 million yet who steals the drugs she craves.

But Cindy got off with a slap on the wrist, thanks in part to the efforts of her husband. This law-and-order conservative, this defender of the hard line in the war on drugs, saw nothing wrong in using his influence. No insistence here that Cindy do the time that he and Bush insist on, and snigger over, for young black men caught with modest quantities of cocaine.

Cindy, in her efforts to soften her brittle Bergdorf Goodman image – or whatever expensive store it is in New York to which she regularly flies to buy racks of clothes - and connect with average Americans, also had the minor flap of being caught misrepresenting other people's recipes as her own. Integrity does not appear to be a strong McCain family value.

Recently McCain had a hard time remembering how many houses he and Cindy owned. Does anyone believe that that is the kind of personal matter someone forgets? If he was indeed being honest, then almost certainly Alzheimer's has set in. More likely though, he was not being honest, trying to deflect an embarrassing question. The latest count on the houses is eight. ..."

Full article here on Bella Ciao blog.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 07:13 PM

Mr. McCain and Iraq

Published: September 1, 2008

"Senator John McCain's rival, Senator Barack Obama, once was a lonely voice demanding the withdrawal of all combat forces by mid-2010.

But now, Iraq's leaders are pushing a timetable that would have American troops out in 2011.

Even President Bush — who had long scorned the notion of a withdrawal deadline as defeatist — looks set to go along. Iraq's leaders are demanding that Mr. Bush accept that deadline in exchange for legalizing the continued American military presence in the country.

That leaves Mr. McCain as the stubborn man out.

While the war is no longer front-page news, thousands of Americans are still fighting and dying there. The war is costing American taxpayers $10 billion a month — that is $10 billion that cannot be spent on health care, education and many other urgent priorities.

Mr. McCain told veterans on Aug. 11 that he would end the war, but intended to "win it first" and assured them that "victory in Iraq is finally in sight."

He needs to explain what he means by victory. A free and democratic Iraq, as Mr. Bush originally promised? That would take generations. Even after spending nearly $700 billion, the United States will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile country.

Iraq's leaders have at least agreed on one thing: they want the Americans gone, sooner rather than later. But they are still squabbling over the political reforms that might bolster stability — squabbling that Mr. Bush enabled by insisting that America's patience was unlimited. Mr. McCain seems eager to repeat that mistake.

Mr. McCain also owes the country an explanation of how he plans to salvage the war in Afghanistan — the true front line in the war on terrorism — where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are getting stronger by the day.

Mr. Obama has offered a sensible blueprint for dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even so, as with Mr. McCain, we need to hear more details. We also need to hear a lot more about how both candidates intend to rebuild an American military whose men and materiel have been depleted by repeated wartime deployments..." (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 06:23 AM

Interesting article in the Financial Times of the UK
Not a safe choice at all

Want to roll the dice on War with Russia?

The world has been moving John McCain's way over the past year. The success of the "surge" in Iraq has helped his cause. So has the Russian invasion of Georgia. On both issues, the Republican candidate for the presidency took positions that now look prescient and courageous.

More generally, the sense that the world is getting more dangerous helps Republicans in general – and a tough, experienced, military man such as Mr McCain in particular. Why take the risk of electing a neophyte such as Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate?

Opinion polls consistently show that the American public has more faith in Mr McCain as commander-in-chief. He looks like the safe choice for dangerous times.

But this is wrong. Mr McCain will not run a "safe" foreign policy. He adores rolling the dice. His decision to select Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate typifies the man. It is a big risk. It could turn out to be inspired. Or it might turn out to be a disaster. But it is not "safe".

Mr McCain approaches international affairs in the same spirit. His instinct is always to take the radical option and to march towards the sound of gunfire.

It was indeed courageous to back the idea of sending more troops to Iraq, at a time when the war was going so badly. But it was the same instinct to choose the bold, aggressive option that made Mr McCain such an enthusiastic backer of the Iraq war in the first place. Indeed, he was arguing for the invasion of Iraq well before the terror attacks on New York and Washington. That now looks reckless.

The Georgian crisis also looks, at first sight, like a vindication for Mr McCain. He has been a longstanding critic of the Russian government. He saw the crisis in Georgia coming a long time ago.

When I visited Georgia last April I discovered that President Mikheil Saakashvili counted Mr McCain as one of his closest friends and allies. Mr Saakashvili told me (with a laugh) that the South Ossetians – whose rebel enclave he later attacked, with such disastrous consequences – had even shot a missile at a helicopter carrying Cindy McCain, the Senator's wife. And the Georgian president told me proudly that Mr McCain had given him a gift – a bullet-proof vest.

Even at the time, this struck me as an ambiguous present. Was it saying, I'm behind you all the way; or was it saying, best of luck, I'll be cheering for you – from a safe distance? Now that Georgia has been so severely mauled by Russia, the dangerous ambiguities in the policies pushed by Mr McCain and the Bush administration are even clearer. The Georgians were flattered, hugged and trained by the Americans. But when the Russian tanks rolled in, there was little the west could do.

Mr McCain says that President Teddy Roosevelt is one of his heroes. But Mr McCain's proclamation in the aftermath of the Russia's invasion – that "we are all Georgians now" – was the opposite of Roosevelt's famous advice to "speak softly and carry a big stick". It was tough talk, with very little to back it up.

Mr McCain's failure to spell out the implications of his strong rhetorical support for Georgia may mean that he has failed to think things through – or just that he does not want to alarm voters. But the Republican needs to answer some difficult questions.

Is the US really prepared to fight Russia to protect Georgia and Ukraine – as Mr McCain's firm support for swift Nato membership for these countries implies? Are we entering a new cold war, as his determination to isolate Russia suggests? If the tough talk is not backed up by tough action, what does that do to American credibility?

Mr McCain's instinct certainly is to confront Russia – and indeed China. Even before the conflict in Georgia, he was arguing for throwing Russia out of the Group of Eight and forming a new League of Democracies.

Mr McCain's confrontational instincts are even more to the fore when it comes to Iran. He has said that the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran. Taken at face value – and given what we know of Iran's nuclear programme – that sounds like a commitment to attack Iran within the first term of a McCain presidency.

The Obama camp argue that Mr McCain will simply continue with the policies of President George W. Bush. The comparison is certainly interesting. In some ways, Mr McCain is a more reassuring figure – because he is curious and has thought hard about foreign policy for many years. But in other respects, Mr McCain might make Mr Bush look like a cautious softie. It was Mr McCain, not Mr Bush, who was the favourite of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party, when the two men ran against each for the Republican nomination in 2000. Mr McCain's policies on Iran, Russia and China are more hawkish even than those of the Bush administration.

Then there is the matter of temperament. Mr Bush is a sunny and optimistic person. Mr McCain is funnier, darker and angrier. Mr Bush steered clear of Vietnam. Mr McCain really is a warrior, whose autobiography begins "I was born into a tradition of military service" – and whose books are full of brooding reflections on the nature of honour.

In international crises, the character and instincts of the American president are critical. Mr Obama is by temperament a cautious, pragmatic conciliator. Mr McCain is aggressive, unorthodox and radical.

Sometimes, of course, the radical choice is the right one. Mr McCain would be an interesting choice for president. But safe? Forget about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 06:54 AM

Jack quoting the views expressed in the UK press is a double edged sword.

This is a British journalists view of the Democratic Convention.

'The real problem is those who were open-minded towards Mr Obama but who now fear he may not be up to it; and they are not hard to find in Denver.

While we await his turn in the spotlight it was his wife, Michelle, who on Monday evening supplied the first keynote speech of the convention.

It is interesting how the Americans, having rejected the British Constitution in 1776, now seem entranced by the idea of what Walter Bagehot (explaining the appeal of monarchy) called the constitutional device of "a family on the throne".

We have had the Bush family ad nauseam, the Kennedys ditto (with old Ted yanked from his sickbed to endorse Mr Obama in a stunt that made On Golden Pond seem light on sentimentality), an attempt at the Clinton family, and now the extended family of the Obamas.

Mrs Obama, eloquent, charismatic, articulate, glamorous, felt obliged to make a speech outlining, among other things, the all-American nature of her parents and brother.

No detail of her father's suffering from multiple sclerosis was too intimate, no reference to her humble upbringing too cloying, to be shared with the American people. Mrs Obama has long since chucked in her job as a stratospherically highly paid lawyer to serve the public in more humble capacities: as she did not hesitate to tell us.

It was a pungent reminder of the differences that remain between our two cultures: any politician, or politician's spouse, who tried to push such a line in Britain would be laughed out of public life. Here, things are different, and it is felt they need to be different in order to find the right person to govern America and lead the free world.'

from 'How could having a good 'story' make Obama a good president?'
Telegraph.co.uk

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 07:37 AM

"'How could having a good 'story' make Obama a good president?'"


                It can't, and there's a whole lot of folks out here who wonder which parts of the story were edited out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:51 PM

From The Onion:

Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain

11:23PM ET

Experts predict that Joad Cressbeckler could tip the election to Obama by attracting people who want to vote for the most crotchety candidate possible. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 01:20 PM

Emma, Its an opinion piece. Brits are no dumber or smarter than anyone else. Read it and see if you think he makes a good case. I think he does. I think that McCain, Like Bush, takes too many chances to be an effective President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 07:46 PM

Former POW discusses the use of Vietnam prison experience as a qualification for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 08:18 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWEDMLmjKk

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 09:50 AM

"...(Palin) didn't say "no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere" until after Congress had already abandoned it but given Alaska a blank check for $223 million in taxpayers' money anyway. Far from rejecting federal pork, she hired lobbyists to secure her town a disproportionate share of earmarks ($1,000 per resident in 2002, 20 times the per capita average in other states). Though McCain claimed "she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," she has never issued a single command as head of the Alaska National Guard. As for her "executive experience" as mayor, she told her hometown paper in Wasilla, Alaska, in 1996, the year of her election: "It's not rocket science. It's $6 million and 53 employees." Her much-advertised crusade against officials abusing their office is now compromised by a bipartisan ethics investigation into charges that she did the same.

How long before we learn she never shot a moose?

Given the actuarial odds that could make Palin our 45th president, it would be helpful to know who this mystery woman actually is. Meanwhile, two eternal axioms of our politics remain in place. Americans vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom. And in judging the top of the ticket, voters look first at the candidates' maiden executive decision, their selection of running mates. Whatever we do and don't know about Palin's character at this point, there is no ambiguity in what her ascent tells us about McCain's character and potential presidency.

He wanted to choose the pro-abortion-rights Joe Lieberman as his vice president. If he were still a true maverick, he would have done so. But instead he chose partisanship and politics over country. "God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man," said the shafted Lieberman in his own tedious convention speech last week. What a pathetic dupe. McCain is now the man of James Dobson and Tony Perkins. The "no surrender" warrior surrendered to the agents of intolerance not just by dumping his pal for Palin but by moving so far to the right on abortion that even Cindy McCain seemed unaware of his radical shift when being interviewed by Katie Couric last week.

That ideological sellout, unfortunately, was not the worst leadership trait the last-minute vice presidential pick revealed about McCain. His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless.

As The New York Times reported last Tuesday, Palin was sloppily vetted, at best. McCain operatives and some of their press surrogates responded to this revelation by trying to discredit The Times article. After all, The Washington Post had cited McCain aides (including his campaign manager, Rick Davis) last weekend to assure us that Palin had a "full vetting process." She had been subjected to "an F.B.I. background check," we were told, and "the McCain camp had reviewed everything it could find on her."

The Times had it right. The McCain campaign's claims of a "full vetting process" for Palin were as much a lie as the biographical details they've invented for her. There was no F.B.I. background check. The Times found no evidence that a McCain representative spoke to anyone in the State Legislature or business community. Nor did anyone talk to the fired state public safety commissioner at the center of the Palin ethics investigation. No McCain researcher even bothered to consult the relevant back issues of the Wasilla paper. Apparently when McCain said in June that his vice presidential vetting process was basically "a Google," he wasn't joking.

This is a roll of the dice beyond even Bill Clinton's imagination. "Often my haste is a mistake," McCain conceded in his 2002 memoir, "but I live with the consequences without complaint." Well, maybe it's fine if he wants to live with the consequences, but what about his country? Should the unexamined Palin prove unfit to serve at the pinnacle of American power, it will be too late for the rest of us to complain...."(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 10:20 AM

McCain has yet to ever vote for a bill that benefitted Veterans with better health care or education.

The ad that shows wind mill generators with McCain on the screen belies the fact that he has always voted against alternative energy projects.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 07:13 PM

McCain hopes those compelling biographies will be enough to take him and his running mate over the line in November. Since personality matters as much as (sometimes more than) policies — George W. Bush was elected in 2000 because he was Mr. Congeniality — the Arizona senator has decided to give short shrift to issues and go all out on charming personal stories.

"This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates," his campaign manager, Rick Davis, told The Washington Post last week.

So it's no surprise McCain's acceptance speech on Thursday night was heavy on biography and short on policy prescriptions. The short film that introduced him offered a romantic, Hollywood-esque arc: A rambunctious young man trying to earn his place in a family of war heroes goes off to the Naval Academy and becomes a fighter pilot; he is chastened by the torture he endures at the hands of his enemies; the young hero not only survives but triumphs, winning a seat in the U.S. Senate. It's quite a tale, with the added dimension of truth.

McCain seemed most comfortable when he was speaking of the ideals he embraced in those years — honor, service, courage. But he was oddly lifeless and unconvincing when he rattled off a laundry list of domestic issues, touching on "school choice," health insurance and taxes. That's clearly not where his heart is.

Even less persuasive was his attempt to snatch the mantle of change from his rival, Barack Obama. (How many times did he use the word "change"?) McCain is 72 years old; besides, he is a card-carrying member of the Republican Party, which has held power for the past eight years. It's hard to run as an insurgent if you've been part of the establishment.

The aging war hero apparently believes that he is still the "maverick," the daring, even swashbuckling, senator who bucks an entrenched Republican machine to serve the interests of the people above the party — a "Mr. Smith" played by John Wayne instead of Jimmy Stewart. But that McCain gave up the good fight after his crushing defeat at the hands of Bush forces in the 2000 Republican presidential primary. Since then, the "maverick" has set about ingratiating himself to the same establishment he now vows to fight. He has adopted nearly every one of Bush's failed policies...." (Sara Tucker, ajc.com, Atlanta)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 04:08 AM

I don't know if this one's been posted before, but in case it hasn't...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70

Why I will not vote for John McCain

Excerpt -

"As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate...

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."

More here...

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html

"Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals.

After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 12:44 AM

below are five videos that present the Real McCain: an elitist out of touch with hard-working Americans; a double talker who supports a costly war in Iraq but won't support our veterans. Forward this email on. This is the McCain everyone should know.

1. The Real McCain 2: Watch as McCain's YouTube problem became his nightmare in the video that received over 4 million views.
Real McCain2

2. Less Jobs. More Wars: What is this 'Iraq war' charge on my bill?
Less Jobs, More Wars

3. John McCain vs. John McCain: Tell McCain to get off the Double Talk Express.
McCain vs. McCain

4. McCain's Spiritual Guide: The video that caused McCain to renounce Rev. Rod Parsley's bigoted endorsement.
McCain's Spiritual Guide

5. Why Won't McCain Sign the GI Bill? Presenting the most blatant hypocrisy of the McCain campaign.
McCain and the GI Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:22 PM

McCain's Faustian Bargain
September 11, 2008 10:15 AM ET | John Aloysius Farrell | Permanent Link


Well, we can pretty much forget about President John McCain reaching across the aisle and getting anything done with a Democratic Congress in the next four years.

By choosing to run such a false and dishonest campaign, McCain has performed superbly, teaching liberals and Democrats to hate him.

And Republican right-wingers, if they push McCain across the finish line, will justly believe that they have him on their leash.

There will be no bipartisan goodwill if McCain takes office. No end to the bitter division in this country. Americans will hate Americans. The nation will continue to drift.

The tone of McCain's campaign has taken care of that. McCain-Rove has replaced Bush-Rove. We will have four more years of malaise.

Until he abuses it and Congress and the country cut him off, President McCain will have the authority to carry on our intellectually bankrupt Cold War foreign policy. He may get us in a third or fourth war.

The Democrats may try to stop it, and then we'll all get to call one another jerks and cowards, while our military families pay the ultimate price and the Chinese and Russians and Iranians thank their gods we are such fools.

The Bush tax cuts will expire—even the good ones for middle-class families, small businesses, and research and development—because McCain will be bound by the all-or-nothing pledge he's made to the antitax zealots.

The Supreme Court? Don't kid yourself. If McCain fails the religious conservatives and their plans to make this a holy Christian nation by nominating anyone less than another Clarence Thomas, the Democrats will be the least of his problems.

But, no. He's a maverick, you say. He'll think of some wonderfully maverick-y things to do to shake that ol' Washington up. Why, he'll break with those mean party hard-liners.

Don't kid yourself, Shirley Temple. McCain's an old man. Vary from the conservative script—betray the almighty base—and he'll have Republican primary opponents lining up in Iowa and New Hampshire by the spring of 2010.

You think that Vice President Sarah Palin will help? She's a darling now. But consider what Romney and Huckabee and a dozen other rivals with white teeth and dark suits and their own presidential ambitions will be doing to her in the next two years. Or maybe what she'll be doing, to distance herself from McCain.

The country needs jobs. An economic rebirth. A better healthcare system. Reform of government. Remember the administration of George H. W. Bush? And how divided government worked then? There's our template.

Remember, when Bush compromised with the Democrats, how Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot stabbed him in the back? Remember Bill Clinton getting elected and Bob Dole's Republicans refusing to give him a single vote in the Senate? Remember Newt and the government shutdown? Remember wasting Clinton's second term on that ridiculous impeachment, while Osama bin Laden chuckled and schemed?

McCain has cut his Faustian deal. He may win the Oval Office, but his tactics will make it a pyrrhic victory. For all of us.

(Newsweek)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 03:47 PM

"Unless, in fact, this election is about Palin. And it has to be. She - along with the Iraq war - is the embodiment of McCain's claim to presidential judgment and experience. If she is a fraud, and has been proven a demonstrable liar in ways that a competent campaign would have vetted six months ago, McCain's campaign is over, and deserves to be over. As is the election. I don't see how we can know anything until she has answered a series of obvious, factual questions from the press corps about the truthfulness of her various statements in the public record.

Besides, Obama needs to respond to the insane and desperate lies being lobbed at him. He's not Dukakis. And he should also keep reminding voters that, unlike the McCain camp, who don't want to discuss the issues in this campaign, he does.

Look: we seem to be on the verge of a financial crisis of potentially severe proportions, we have a nuclear-armed rogue state with a leadership in flux in North Korea, we have a direct war between the United States and the Taliban in Pakistani territory - and John McCain wants to talk about "lipstick on a pig" and a woman who didn't know the difference between a Shiite and Sunni two weeks ago. (I'm sure they've programmed her now).

They cannot be serious. I don't believe the McCain campaign is serious about anything any more, except bullying the press and running out the clock. This is the most shambolic campaign I have ever witnessed in a general election. If he runs his campaign this badly, how would he run the country?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

IT'S HARD to think of a presidential campaign with a wider chasm between the seriousness of the issues confronting the country and the triviality, so far anyway, of the political discourse. On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government's rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Sen. John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Sen. Barack Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.

Mr. Obama's supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive -- it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "The other side, suddenly, they're saying 'we're for change too,' " Mr. Obama said. "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." With a woman on the ticket, apparently all references to cosmetics -- or pork of the non-bridge variety, for that matter -- are forbidden. "Sen. Obama owes Gov. Palin an apology," sniffed former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift. "Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see." No matter that Mr. McCain used the lipstick-on-a-pig phrase himself, referring to (female) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care plan, or that (female) former McCain aide Torie Clarke wrote a book with that title. In the heat of a campaign, operatives will pounce on any misstep and play to the referees over any arguable foul. We understand that, and certainly the Obama campaign has not been above such tactics. But this cynical use of the gender card is unusually silly.


The kindergarten sex ad, exhuming an argument that Republican Alan Keyes used against Mr. Obama in his 2004 Senate race, was equally ridiculous. "Obama's one accomplishment?" the narrator asks. "Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' -- to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama: wrong on education. Wrong for your family." As a state senator, Mr. Obama voted for -- though he did not sponsor -- a measure that set out standards for non-mandatory sex and health education. It required that instruction be "age and developmentally appropriate" and allowed parents to have their children opt out. To call this an accomplishment seems a departure for a campaign that was insisting just last week that Mr. Obama had no legislation to his credit, conveniently ignoring his significant work on a lobbying reform bill. Mr. Obama's support for the Illinois measure seems both reasonable and relatively unimportant.

John McCain is a serious man who promised to wage a serious campaign. Win or lose, will he be able to look back on this one with pride? Right now, it's hard to see how.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:32 PM

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg pries that window open much further with a terrific piece in the October edition of the magazine entitled: "The Wars of John McCain."

In it, Goldberg, a Fix friend, seeks to draw out the Arizona senator on his views of World War II, Vietnam, Korea and Iraq in hopes of shining a light on the way in which his experiences with each -- from his grandfather's service in WWII to his father's and his own involvement in Vietnam to his approach to the war in Iraq -- reveal the way in which McCain thinks about America's role in the world.

Writes Goldberg:

"In one area, though, he has been more or less constant: his belief in the power of war to solve otherwise insoluble problems. This ideology of action has not been undermined by his horrific experiences as a tortured POW during the Vietnam War, or by the Bush Administration's disastrous execution of the Iraq war."

And later he adds:

"[McCain's] willingness to speak frankly about the utility of military intervention sets him apart from his opponent. Senator Obama, though certainly no pacifist, envisions a world of cooperation and diplomacy; McCain sees a world of organic conflict and zero-sum competition."

Those paragraphs frame the choice in the coming election as starkly -- and effectively -- as any we've seen written in recent months. Unlike eight years ago when many people went to the ballot box believing that there was little difference in the directions that George W. Bush and Al Gore would move the country, the divisions between Barack Obama and McCain are real and impactful when it comes to defining (and re-defining) America's role in the world.

While that insight is critical to understanding McCain, it's a paragraph later in Goldberg's story that reveals a fundamental -- yet ill-understood -- truth about the Republican candidate.

"In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals," writes Goldberg. "It's not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor -- two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined -- that he becomes truly unbending." (Emphasis added by The Fix.)

Those lines are a perfect explication of John McCain the politician. He is a man for whom rigid adherence to ideology does not come naturally and, in fact, he tends to bridle at the idea that he must always come down on one side of an issue due to the "R" after his name. (David Brooks, as always, says it better than The Fix can: "The main axis in McCain's worldview is not left-right," Brooks wrote in recent column. "It's public service versus narrow self-interest.")

But, war -- and the politics surrounding it -- are outside the realm of McCain's tendency toward "ideological plasticity" (in the great phrase by Goldberg). The rules that govern other decisions in the campaign don't apply; it's why McCain stuck by his support for the surge despite its initial unpopularity even as he was abandoning his call for comprehensive immigration reform. The two issues simply aren't equivalent in McCain's mind. One is matter of life and death. The other is politics.

Goldberg's story is a remarkable -- and rare -- look at how McCain thinks about politics and policy; what he values, what he doesn't and why. Read the whole thing.


From "The Fix", washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:33 PM

"ime's Joe Klein is particularly exercised:

"Back in 2000, after John McCain lost his mostly honorable campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he went about apologizing to journalists -- including me -- for his most obvious mis-step: his support for keeping the confederate flag on the state house.

"Now he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it . . .

"I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain -- contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat -- talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig."

TPM's Josh Marshall can't resist an I-told-you-so:

"One of the interesting aspects of this campaign is watching the scales fall from the eyes of many of John McCain's closest admirers among the veteran DC press corps. I'm not talking about the freaks on Fox News or any of the sycophants at the AP. I'm talking about, let's say, the better sort of reporters and commentators in the 45 to 65 age bracket. To the extent that the press was McCain's base (and in many though now sillier respects it still is) this was the base of the base. And talking to a number of them I can understand why that was, at least in the sense of the person he was then presenting himself as.

"But over the last . . . maybe six weeks, in various conversations with these folks, the change is palpable. Whether it will make any difference in the tone of coverage in the dominant media I do not know. But it is sinking in.

"All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House . . .

"So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska."...(WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:37 PM

""John McCain has obviously decided that he can't win a straight-up fight, so he's decided instead to wage a battle of character assassination, relentless lies, and culture war armageddon. So what happens on November 5th?

"If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic Congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war.



"And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia."

At Huffington Post, John Neffinger sees a turning point for Obama:

"This 'sex ed' ad the McCain campaign just launched is waaaay over the line. After a parade of out-of-context quotes, it shows Obama smirking naughtily as the voiceover talks about him wanting to provide 'comprehensive' sex education to kindergarteners. The voiceover by itself is hard-hitting, but together with the visuals, the ad basically paints Obama as a pedophile. (In reality, the legislation provides for educating younger children about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles.)

"So this is it. This is Obama's Dukakis-and-the-death-penalty moment.

"Everyone who sees this ad can see how dirty it is. And if Obama wants Americans to respect him, they must be allowed to see him react with the kind of anger -- controlled, but still palpable -- that they would feel if somebody did that to them.

"That means Obama must address the issue, personally and promptly, and do it just right. He must talk about honor and shame, how he has young daughters, and how just like any parent, he wants to do everything he can to protect them from pedophiles."..."(Ibid)

---

So McCain's campaign is running up the dirty tricks book, just as predicted during the primaries.

But Obama is not standing still for the crap they're slinging. We will see if his defense turns into a good offense or not. I suspect we'll see some really good long midcourt baskets that will leave Palin with rouge on her face.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:52 PM

The problem is, when Obama has to speak without a tele-prompter, it sounds like Morse Code--dit dit dah dah dah, dit dit...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:33 AM

"The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: "I'm John McCain, and I approved this message."

This from that straight-talker of yore, who fervidly denounced the 2004 Bush campaign's Swift Boat character attacks on John Kerry's military record.

What a difference four years makes, especially after Mr. McCain secured the nomination by hiring some of the same low-blow artists from the Bush campaign.

The kindergarten ad flat-out lies: telling voters that Mr. Obama's "one accomplishment" in education was to favor "comprehensive" sex education for 5-year-olds. "Learning about sex before learning to read?" intones the voice-over, as a blur of respected sources are cited — none of them accurately, as they have proclaimed.

The truth is that as an Illinois legislator, Mr. Obama favored a sensible bill supported by many mainline organizations — including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society and the Illinois Public Health Association — to provide an "age and developmentally appropriate" sex education curriculum for older students. At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators. And parents of children of all ages had the right to withdraw their children from the classes.

Surely, Senator McCain knows that all that change he's promising for the tooth-and-claw Washington culture must start on the hustings. Yet, the kindergarten ad that he's blessed signals that his goal is shamefully more of the same.

The way these ads work, this one is already playing over and over on the Web as a free-media "ghost," in professional parlance — too late for any cynical expression of regret by Mr. McCain. And no regret has been offered.

The lesson for voters is to be wary of all ads from the McCain machine. The lesson for Mr. McCain is that if he really believes in straight talk, he should fire his ad writers and any aide who believes that the best way to win the presidency is to lie to American voters. "

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:56 PM

NEW YORK (AFP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday denied his barrage of hardball negative advertisements against Democratic rival Barack Obama amounted to "lies."

The Arizona Senator defended his campaign's tactics against Obama, which claimed his opponent called Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin a "pig" and advocated teaching sex education to kindergarten children.

"Actually, they are not lies," McCain said on the ABC television chat show "The View."

The Obama campaign had argued that McCain's camp deliberately misinterpreted Obama's recent comment that Republican claims to represent change were like putting "lipstick on a pig" as a sexist remark aimed at Palin.

"He shouldn't have said it. He chooses his words very carefully, this is a tough campaign," McCain said.

Earlier this week, the McCain campaign debuted an attack ad claiming that as a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama backed a bill to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners."

"Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family," the narrator of the advertisement said.

In reality, the legislation allowed local schools to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, meaning that kindergarten kids could be warned about sexual predators and inappropriate touching but not taught about sex.

The Obama camp hit back angrily at McCain over the advertisement.

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

"Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:14 PM

Old thinking deteriorates. Bad judgement calls on selecting nutcase VP's.
Lying becomes part of the political process and a hallmark of the GOP.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:12 PM

Sept. 12, 2008 | On the anniversary of 9/11, the virtuous John McCain showed up for a single day, as if the solemnity and sorrow of the occasion had penetrated his hard campaign carapace. From his joint appearance with Barack Obama at ground zero in the morning through their consecutive interviews on national service at Columbia University that evening, McCain reminded America that we have known a politician by that name who cared about honor, independence and decency.

Meanwhile, his newer doppelgänger appeared on television in horrifically dishonest and inflammatory commercials savaging Obama over sex education, assuring us smugly that "I'm John McCain and I approved this message." The vicious John McCain never went away, even for those few hours.

And that is the contradiction now confronted by the national press corps, whose members desperately wish to believe in the old McCain they adored rather than the new McCain who nauseates them. Some pretend that what they see is not really happening, or doesn't matter; others wrinkle their noses but cannot quite muster indignation; and a few, very few, realize that the campaign is being debased by the man who once denounced this ugly style of politics and promised reform.

Enjoy this story?

Thanks for your support.

Probing those issues is sensitive and painful for the press corps that still loves him, but the Arizona senator's appearance at Columbia to discuss national service -- a safe, worthy topic that does not lend itself to Swift-boat-style attacks -- provided a perfect opportunity for two nationally prominent journalists. Judy Woodruff of PBS and Richard Stengel of Time magazine, the Columbia forum's interlocutors, were plainly relieved to encounter the agreeable McCain who says only kind things about his opponents, prays for the recovery of his beloved friend Ted Kennedy, understands the importance of government, and speaks movingly about the values that unite us as Americans.


That smirking creep who accuses Obama of wanting to subject 6-year-olds to "comprehensive sex education" was not onstage. Instead there was only a familiar fellow whose answers, while occasionally dotty or inelegant, were nevertheless always well meant and sometimes witty.

Many of the questions posed by Stengel and Woodruff were softer than cotton candy. ("Senator, we have less than a minute in this block. But do you think the length of your service in Washington gives you a unique understanding of the changes that need to be made?" asked the gentle Judy.) Such indulgence may have been inevitable under the circumstances, since the service forum was not a press conference or a debate. Tough interrogation might have looked like an ambush.

For everyone involved, in any case, the clear agenda was to establish the next administration's legislative and programmatic benchmark on national service -- and that was accomplished when both Obama and McCain committed to expand AmeriCorps and encourage other volunteer initiatives, both public and private. That left plenty of time for meandering discussion of the importance of national service, the exceptional character of America and other matters that called for patriotic bloviation. To their credit, Woodruff and Stengel did not wholly avoid the sore subject of that other McCain. But they didn't press hard.

When Woodruff asked him about the "derisive" attitude toward Obama's community organizing expressed by Sarah Palin and other speakers at the Republican convention, she gave him the opportunity to disown that "kind of language."

McCain's response was revealing -- not because he said anything new but because he adopted the same style of obfuscation that the politicians of the Bush family have traditionally used to distance themselves from the thugs who act on their behalf.

He began by acknowledging that politics "is a tough business." Then he tried to blame Obama by suggesting that "the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different" if only the Democrat had accepted his proposal to hold a dozen joint town hall meetings. He said that Palin was only "defending herself" by attacking Obama. And finally he claimed, contrary to every utterance on the subject at his convention, that he respects Obama's "outstanding" record of community service.


This exercise in excuse making went unchallenged until Stengel asked McCain whether the "ugly" tone of politics would drive young people away from public service -- and what had happened to his hopes and promises of a "different" and "high-minded" campaign.

"Has it been rough? Of course. And again, it isn't the final recipe or the only answer," he replied, again demanding that Obama accept his "request" to "go around America" together. This sounded more and more like a rehearsed response. Woodruff followed up by asking plaintively whether it "is naive of people to expect that politics could be a little less rough-and-tumble and even nasty."

McCain's answer was the same as that a man like Karl Rove might offer:

"The people make the final judgment with their votes. They make the final judgment about campaigns and how we present ourselves to the American people. And I think that that will be the ultimate test of what kind of campaigns do we run."

In other words, the only test of campaign tactics is whether they work. So now we know that there are not really two McCains, one good and one bad. There is only one McCain, and he has two faces. (Salon)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 09:46 PM

The problem isn't McCain as much as the process of getting elected. Look what Rove and company did to McCain in 2000. He's a smart man; he learns. A candidate has no power and little influence over the course of the country if he/she loses.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 09:55 PM

The process reflects the standards of those who drive it--a scenario in which McCain is one of the figureheads; when he dives for the gutter, it reflects on the whole national disposition, thanks to the amplifying cross-copying of the media and the hypnotically suggestible state of many viewers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 10:46 PM

I agree that it reflects the standards of those who drive it--now all we have to do is figure out who's driving it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 12:24 AM

Well, whoever is pulling McSame's puppet strings, for example...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 09:54 AM

...and Obama's!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 06:58 PM

Want to see McCain's mansions?

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/49248-mccain-s-mansions-the-houses-that-greed-buil

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 07:24 PM

Boy, what a lacklustre thread this is. It tells you something when our "Popular views on....." threads rank at these comparable levels in their number of posts:

1. Popular views on Obama - 2910 posts

2. Popular views on the Bush Administration - 1480 posts (most of them by Amos) ;-)

3. Popular views on McCain - 473 posts

4. Popular views on Chongo - 167 posts

5. Popular views on cheese - 65 posts


The level of interest in John McCain is apparently so weak that he is not all that far ahead of an ape and a dairy product! LOL!

A similar "Popular views" thread on Sarah Palin would have probably garnered well over 1,000 posts already, judging by all the threads going about her. Hell, maybe 2,000...

This tells you something. Without Sarah Palin, where would McCain be right now? Very few people can be bothered to even talk about him much if these threads are any indication.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:59 AM

I think they are an indication. McCain was headed for obscurity before he picked Sarah Palin. Now he's pulling ahead of Obama in the national polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:22 PM

Records show McCain more bipartisan
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
Monday, September 15, 2008

Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.

An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.

McCain campaign surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham, though, said the numbers expose a difference between the two candidates.

"The number - 55 and 13 - probably shows that one has been more desirous to find common ground than the other. The legislative record of Senator Obama is very thin," said Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, who has teamed up with Mr. McCain probably more than any other senator.

The Times study looked at the bills each man introduced as the chief sponsor, and at the bills sponsored by other senators that each man signed onto. The study excluded resolutions and amendments, focusing instead on measures that each man authored and put into the normal legislative process.

Former Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, all independents, were grouped with Democrats because each caucused with Democrats during the time under study.

Bipartisanship is a frequent issue on the campaign trail, with the McCain camp and surrogates such as Mr. Graham arguing the standard is how often someone takes leadership on an issue in defiance of his own party - a measure by which Mr. Obama falls short and Mr. McCain clearly excels.

He even revels in his stances, telling the audience at a values forum at Saddleback Church in California last month his list is extensive: "Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture." He could have added campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts as other areas on which he's broken with the majority of his party.

At the same forum, Mr. Obama said his major break with Democrats came on congressional ethics, when he sponsored a bill to curb meals and gifts from lobbyists.

In a memo to reporters, his campaign points to bills he worked on that gained near-unanimous support from both parties, including a bill more than a third of the Senate signed onto, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, pushing peace initiatives in Sudan, and a bill sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, on charitable contributions that passed by a voice vote in each chamber.

But foremost, his campaign cites his work teaming up in 2006 with Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, on the Cooperative Proliferation Detection Act, a noncontroversial measure to secure weapons of mass destruction, and with Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to force the administration to create a searchable database to track federal spending grants.

Speaking to reporters during the Republican National Convention earlier this month Obama aide Robert Gibbs said Mr. Lugar and Mr. Coburn would back up Mr. Obama's bipartisanship claims.

Mr. Lugar's spokesman said the senator is not doing interviews on the subject. Mr. Coburn, in an interview, said Mr. Obama is a good senator to work with, but said there's no comparison to Mr. McCain's long record.

"Barack is a great guy, a nice guy, he's a good friend of mine. He has passed two pieces of legislation since he's been in the Senate - had his name on two," Mr. Coburn said. He praised Mr. Obama's staff for the work they did on the spending grants bill, but he said Mr. Obama hasn't gone head-to-head against his leadership when it mattered: "Where have you seen him challenge the status quo?"

Mr. McCain on the campaign trail cites his own frequent Democratic legislative allies such as Mr. Lieberman, with whom he's worked on gun control and global warming; Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was his partner for immigration and patients' rights; Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who worked with him on campaign finance; and Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who was the top Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee when Mr. McCain was chairman.

Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Kennedy didn't respond or declined through spokesmen to talk about the issue. Mr. Lieberman, however, has gone in the opposite direction, endorsing Mr. McCain for office and hitting Mr. Obama for failing to live up to his bipartisan claims.

Mr. Graham said it was unfortunate people weren't recognizing their work with Mr. McCain.

"What you've got now is, you've got some people who are afraid to recognize John's bipartisanship because of the nature of the election," Mr. Graham said.

Mr. Graham has teamed up with Mr. McCain on some of his most contentious bills, including the immigration and campaign-finance fights, and said they both have "the scars to prove" they were in the fights.

"I have experienced the price that's been paid to help John do some difficult things since 2004," he said.

Those fights are part of the reason Mr. McCain had trouble securing the Republican presidential nomination, including winning less than 50 percent of Republican primary voters' support, despite clearing the field less than halfway through the primaries.

The Times analysis found Mr. McCain's most frequent Democratic teammates are Mr. Dorgan, with whom he shared leadership of the Indian Affairs Committee and who co-sponsored 23 of Mr. McCain's bills, and Mr. Lieberman, who signed onto 15 McCain bills.

Mr. Obama's most frequent Republican partners were Mr. Lugar, who co-sponsored nine Obama bills, and Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, who signed on to eight of Mr. Obama's measures.

The bill on which Mr. McCain attracted the most support in the past few years was his plan to combat greenhouse-gas emissions. That bill garnered 16 co-sponsors, 14 of whom were Democrats, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrats' vice-presidential nominee. Mr. Obama himself signed onto another of Mr. McCain's global-warming bills.

Mr. Obama's best successes in attracting co-sponsors came on a bill to boost the union's bargaining power with the Federal Aviation Administration, on which all 38 co-sponsors were Democrats, and a bill to issue a postage stamp honoring Mrs. Parks, which garnered 24 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

The Times study didn't look at voting, but Congressional Quarterly conducts annual studies of senators' voting records.

Over his Senate career, Mr. McCain has voted with the majority of Senate Republicans about 85 percent of the time, while in his three years in the Senate Mr. Obama has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:59 PM

The idea that McCain is bi-partisan is laughable.

Quoting the Washington Times is like selecting a passage from Mein Kampf.

It is complete garbage by a right-wing owned and biased newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 01:03 PM

The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon of the infamous "Moonies",
an ultra-right-wing conservative abusive religionist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 01:14 PM

Stringsinger

Can you find any error in the FACTS presented? If not, you are being an idiot. Facts can be checked- OPINIONS are whatever people decide on.

Is the article fact or opinion?

If you want to limit sources to only those that agree with what you do, then I fail to see how you are any different than Rev. Moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:02 PM

If Obama did in fact try to forbid the "Free Lunch" from lobbyists, then indeed he is a much despised man in the hearts of DC politicians.

The way to a man's heart is through his stomach.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM

"Jonathan Martin:

McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation.

"We recognize it's not going to be 2000 again," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media's swooning coverage of McCain's ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. "But he lost then. We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."


What this means is that they will lie and refuse to be accountable for the lies. In fact, because the lies are working, they will keep lying. All that matters to McCain is winning. By whatever means. By whatever lies. It's pure Rove. Which is why, if it works against a candidate like Obama, we will not have honest or rational discourse in American politics for a generation.

"(Atlantic)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

Frankly, given what McCain went through in 2000, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that he's campaigning this way.
But I don't think it has anything to do with an honest discourse in American politics. When have we ever had that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

"Obama's fundraising phenomenon continues. Given the terrifying prospect of president Palin, I can completely understand why the money is now pouring in. My job is to flush out all the information we can find on this serial liar and get it to you. Your job is to figure out what to do with that information. But there's no call for complacency:

It doesn't mean the Democrats will outspend the Republicans this year, though. The Republican National Committee's cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, in combination with swelling outside spending, will likely allow McCain to level the playing field, though the fact that Obama has raised the money himself, in small chunks, gives him direct control over how it's spent, and fewer concerns about technical limits on spending. An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August.
I hope Obama stops running that cheap ad about McCain's out-of-it-ness with computers and the like. It's not as vicious or anywhere near as deceptive as McCain's ad onslaught, but it's beneath the Obama campaign. It's their one current error. Correct it. Remove it.

Obama must maintain the high road. He must keep insisting that the McCain-Palin camp has no new policies to offer on the most critical issues we face, especially in foreign policy. And he must carefully and relentlessly explain what he intends to do. If he does that and refuses to take the bait, he will win. If he descends into the foul sewer where McCain now resides, he will lose.

Karl McCain knows one thing: how to smear, lie, disorient, distract, and intimidate. You can't beat these thugs and liars at their own game. Beat them at the task of government. They are unfit for it. Obama is not.

(Atlantic)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:48 PM

McCain Videos for those in Doubt.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:50 PM

The Progressive:

McCain-onomics


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has spent much of his general election campaign for president trying to distance himself from President Bush's failed policies -- even though the policies he has outlined and would pursue as president mirror those of the last eight years. McCain's strategy so far has been to make the public forget he is offering Bush's policies. During the Republican National Convention earlier this month, McCain and his fellow conservatives seemingly refused to acknowledge that the current administration even exists: Bush's name was mentioned once while Vice President Dick Cheney's name was not mentioned at all. Convention speakers also ignored many key issues that face Americans today, such as health care, environment, and the economy. Yet at times, McCain's surrogates will let the truth slip out. In June, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) admitted that McCain's economic policies would "absolutely" be an "enhancement" of Bush's. He's right. McCain's economic policies are rooted in the same supply-side economic theories that give huge tax cuts to the rich and the most profitable corporations, which will ultimately expand the already ballooning federal deficit. Indeed, as New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor Paul Krugman noted, McCain's economic proposals are "Bush made permanent" and "would leave the federal government with far too little revenue to cover its expenses."

THE WEALTHY WILL CASH IN: If elected president, McCain plans to double down on Bush's corporate and individual tax cuts. His plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, a plan that would save corporations $175 billion per year, with $45 billion going to America's 200 largest companies as identified by Fortune Magazine. The five largest U.S. oil companies would save a grand total of $3.8 billion per year. The wealthiest Americans would also cash in. McCain's tax plan will increase after-tax income of the richest 3.4 percent by more than twice the average for all households -- and offer no benefit to the poorest taxpayers and minimal savings for the middle class. At the same time, McCain has not offered any specifics on how he would pay for these massive cuts. In fact, McCain's plan would produce the highest federal deficit in 25 years. After inheriting Bush's $407 billion deficit, yearly deficits under McCain would increase sharply, beginning with at least $505 billion in FY2009. 

THE FLAWS OF SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS: Like Bush -- and President Reagan before him -- McCain is fully embracing supply-side economics, lowering tax rates to promote economic activity which, in theory, lead to additional government revenue. But a new report from the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute has analyzed the two "supply-side eras" in U.S. history -- 1981 to 1993 and 2001 to present -- and concluded that "the results have been meager." The report found that after tax increases in 1993, real investment growth was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001 and "economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras." Real median household income "was greatest after the 1993 tax increases, at 2.0 percent annually compared to 1.4 percent after 1981 and 0.3 percent after 2001." Wages and employment also rose higher after 1993 as compared to the two supply-side eras. And in contrast to record deficits that resulted from the two supply-side eras, between 1993 and 1999, the United States"went from a federal deficit of 3.9 percent of GDP to a surplus of 1.4 percent." Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have said that tax cuts do not offset revenue losses.

GREENSPAN WEIGHS IN: Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the current downturn in the economy is "probably a once in a century type of event," one that is the worst he has seen in his career "by far." Indeed, just yesterday, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America "for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer." But Greenspan also addressed McCain's $3.3 trillion tax cuts, telling Bloomberg news last week that the country cannot afford the cuts "unless we cut spending." "I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said. Perhaps McCain will take Greenspan's advice. While McCain has acknowledged that "issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," he has also added the caveat: "I've got Greenspan's book."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:53 AM

"I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."
-- John McCain, October, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:04 AM

older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: "I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves."

Yet another radical element of McCain's plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we've heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these "needless and costly" insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans' ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we'd be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we're not even paying much attention.

(Bob Herbert, NYT columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:20 AM

Michael Kinsley (yes, him again!) writes at PostPartisan, a group blog for The Washington Post's opinion writers. "McCain has described his motive for McCain-Feingold as a giant mea culpa for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. Maybe when this is over, one way or another, McCain will swear off corrupt lying the way he has sworn off corrupt money."

Kinsley later adds:
[N]o one — not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters — cares enough about lying. To some extent, they even respect a well-told lie as evidence of professionalism. If a candidate complains too much about an opponent's lies, he or she starts being regarded as a bad sport, a whiner. Stoic silence doesn't work either. People start asking why you don't "fight back." Pretty soon, the victim of the lies starts getting blamed. C'mon: this isn't paddycakes; politics ain't beanball; and so on. This happened to Al Gore in 2000 and to John Kerry in 2004. And it's already starting to happen to Barack Obama this year.

Sure, if he loses, it will be his fault. Sure, he and everybody ought to know that the Republicans play this game for keeps. But that shouldn't let John McCain off the hook. He says he'd rather lose the election than lose the war. But it seems he'd rather lose that honor he's always going on about than lose the election.

Time magazine's Mark Halperin made a similar complaint on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," and Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post provides a partial transcript (and the video). "To spend even a minute on this expression [lipstick on a pig], I think, is amazing and outrageous," Halperin said.

He later added:
The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on it, they'll fall because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're staying it on the stump as a core part of their message, it's in their advertising. I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist — journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.


NYT Opinionator

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:49 PM

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's senior domestic policy adviser said Tuesday that the BlackBerry mobile e-mail device was a "miracle that John McCain helped create."


Sen. John McCain "laughed" when he heard his adviser's remark about the BlackBerry, another aide says.

The adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, discussing the nation's economic woes with reporters, said that McCain -- who has struggled to stress his economic credentials -- did have experience dealing with the economy, pointing to his time on the Senate Commerce Committee.

Pressed to provide an example of what McCain had accomplished on that committee, Holtz-Eakin said the senator did not have jurisdiction over financial markets, then he held up his Blackberry, telling reporters: "He did this."

"Telecommunications of the United States, the premiere innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create," Holtz-Eakin said. "And that's what he did. He both regulated and deregulated the industry."

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Vice President Al Gore drew controversy when he said that during his time in Congress, he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" -- based on his work promoting funding and early research in that area.

The Obama campaign responded to the McCain adviser's comments Tuesday shortly after they were reported.

"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Meanwhile, McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator "laughed" when he heard the comment.

"He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer," McDonald said.

The Obama campaign debuted an ad last week that attacked McCain's skills with technology, including computers.

The ad refers to the number of years McCain has been in Washington to paint him as out of touch: "1982. John McCain goes to Washington," the announcer says. "Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn't.

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail. Still doesn't understand the economy. And favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations but almost nothing for the middle class.

"After one president who was out of touch ... we just can't afford more of the same."

Asked whether he prefers a Mac or PC in a Yahoo News/Politico interview earlier this year, McCain admitted: "Neither. I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get."
(CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:02 PM

"'(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's senior domestic policy adviser said Tuesday that the BlackBerry mobile e-mail device was a "miracle that John McCain helped create.'"



                           He was probably talking about the other kind of Blackberry, the kind that grow on vines with stickers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:49 PM

From The Progress Report:

This weekend, the U.S. financial system faced what the Washington Post called its "gravest crisis in modern times." The securities firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, "becoming the largest financial firm to fail in the global credit crisis." At the same time, "the credit crisis claimed another of America's oldest financial companies," as Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America for $50 billion. The insurance giant AIG, meanwhile, "made an unprecedented approach to the Federal Reserve seeking short-term financing," and had its credit rating downgraded, leading to "urgent talks to put together a $75 billion line of credit." On the same day that news of this financial turmoil broke, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) argued that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Looking at the members of McCain's "economic council those who advise the campaign on economic issues -- it becomes clear why he is so divorced from the bad economy. Some of his economic advisers helped create the housing crisis, some abused corporate loopholes to hide billions in corporate profits, and some simply refuse to admit that there is anything seriously wrong with the economy. A look at some of McCain's economic gurus:

THE 'ECON BRAIN,' PHIL GRAMM: Former senator Phil Gramm is known as McCain's "Econ Brain." Recently, he has called America "a nation of whiners" who are in a "mental recession." While in the Senate, he was behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The former made legal "the mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector," while the latter "destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies." As The Nation wrote, "those two acts effectively ended  significant regulation of the financial community." After leaving Congress, Gramm worked for the Swiss bank UBS. Politico reported that while at UBS, "Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006. During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages." McCain has also voted against discouraging predatory lending practices.

THE OUTSOURCER, CARLY FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP), Fiorina exploited a corporate loophole to hold more than $14 billion in profits overseas, a loophole that McCain is against closing. She was forced out of HP after a merger with Compaq failed to bring Hewlett the profits that Ms. Fiorina had forecast," resulting in tumbling shares. She is also a defender of outsourcing, which she calls "right-shoring," and has said that "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore." "It's hard on people, but I don't understand how you pick and choose among the jobs you want to save and protect against and not expect people to do the same to you," she said. While McCain has recently condemned "golden parachutes" -- excessive compensation for exiting CEOs – by saying, "CEOs that led us into this mess are walking away with over $20 million, and we're not going to let that happen as president…They deserve nothing," Fiorina walked away from HP with a $21 million severance package, which, with another $21 million in options, brought her $42 million. In a 2007 interview with Fortune, Fiorina said that "what we ought not to do is regulate or legislate CEO compensation."

THE CHIEF LOBBYIST, RICK DAVIS: After the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that  called lobbyists "primary contributors" to the crisis. One of these lobbyists though, is McCain's own campaign manager, Rick Davis, who " served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation." Davis challenged even the smallest reform measures intended to make sure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being held more accountable for their actions. This helped the mortgage giants, "consistently [beat] back congressional efforts to increase oversight, even after a major accounting scandal in 2003 resulted in a $400 million fine for Fannie.

THE IDEOLOGUE, DONALD LUSKIN: Like McCain, Luskin believes that "things today just aren't that bad," and everyone should "quit doling out that bad-economy line." In a Washington Post op-ed last Sunday, he wrote that "we have surely become a nation of exaggerators" regarding the economy, despite agreeing that "the foreclosure rate is the worst since the Great Depression." Luskin claimed that "unemployment is up a bit," when it is at a five-year high of 6.1 percent. He also asserted that the housing crisis is "over." As evidence of the economy's strength, he pointed to last quarter's GDP growth of 3.3 percent, yet "somehow fail[ed] to mention that the quarter before, it was 0.9%, and the quarter before that, -0.2%." Luskin also failed to note that one of the primary reasons for the growth was the "$90 billion in economic stimulus payments that reached taxpayers during the quarter."

---

Seems like John is offering the henhouse to the wolfpack, here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 09:33 AM

" On Tuesday, he clarified his remarks. The clarification was far more worrisome than his initial comments.

He said that by calling the economy fundamentally sound, what he really meant was that American workers are the best in the world. In the best Karl Rovian fashion, he implied that if you dispute his statement about the economy's firm foundation, you are, in effect, insulting American workers. "I believe in American workers, and someone who disagrees with that — it's fine," he told NBC's Matt Lauer.

Let's get a few things straight. First, no one who is currently running for president does not "believe in American workers."

More to the point, the economy is stressed to the breaking point by fundamental problems — in housing, finance, credit, employment, health care and the federal budget — that have been at best neglected, at worst exacerbated during the Bush years. And as a result, American workers have taken a beating.

In clarifying his comments, Mr. McCain lavished praise on workers, but ignored their problems. That is the real insult.

For decades, typical Americans have not been rewarded for their increasing productivity with comparably higher pay or better benefits. The disconnect between work and reward has been especially acute during the Bush years, as workers' incomes fell while corporate profits, which flow to investors and company executives, ballooned. For workers, that is a fundamental flaw in today's economy. It is grounded in policies like a chronically inadequate minimum wage and an increasingly unprogressive tax system, for which Mr. McCain offers no alternatives.

As for Wall Street, Mr. McCain blamed the meltdown on "unbridled corruption and greed." He called for a commission to find out what happened and propose solutions. His diagnosis and his cure are misguided. The crisis on Wall Street is fundamentally a failure to do the things that temper, detect and punish corruption and greed. It was a failure to police the markets, to enforce rules, to heed and sound warnings and expose questionable products and practices.

The regulatory failure is rooted in a markets-are-good-government-is-bad ideology that has been ascendant as long as Mr. McCain has been in Washington and championed by his own party. If Mr. McCain adheres to some other belief system, we would like to hear about it. ..."

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:01 AM

"During the cold war Reagan's defense build-up, decision to deploy new missiles in europe (despite massive protests), and his rhetoric (Evil Empire) all contributed to the rise of Gorbachav and ultimately accelerated the demise of that system. The dems/libs opposed all.

Now we have a gop that is utterly inept at handling terrorism. Consider how much damage the invasion of iraq has done in lives, money and US credibility. What's more, look at how hard it'll be to garner future support for military action based on intel. Who will believe it?

Bush has been an unmitigated disaster. Isolationism isn't the solution. Bullying isn't a policy. McCain shows no promise in the realms diplomatic initiative, nuanced thinking, creative solutions, etc… He's a blustering politician. I hereby denounce my lifelong allegiance to the gop.

Actually, the current admin was the turning point, but the selection of Palin was just another indication of how far this party has fallen. the only constitutionally mandated function of the vp is to assume the presidency should the prez be unable to serve. the only way to assess palin is as a potential prez. foreign policy is of particular importance since it's the province of the executive and opportunists are liable to exploit the turmoil and transition of mccain's demise and the ascendency of this lightweight.

Mccain's 2 most important decisions of the recent past have been on iraq and his vp choice. both are horrible choices, proving his decision-making is faulty. obama has chosen wisely on both fronts. clearly he has the intelligence, temperament and judgment. although his lack of experience is a concern to any fair-minded person, he appears to have exceptional judgment.

— Posted by Former republican (NYT co0mments)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:24 AM

BILL MOYERS: Your book describes conservatism as "an expression of American business." Why exclude Democrats? Jimmy Carter triggered the deregulation frenzy. Bill Clinton pushed for NAFTA, signed the Telecommunications Act of l996 which gave the megamedia companies everything they wanted, auctioned off the Lincoln Bedroom, and swooned over Robert Rubin while showing Robert Reich the door. Democratic Congresses were shaking down corporations when George W. Bush was still tipsy in Texas. And who was running Congress during the S&L swindles of the late 80s? Why single out conservatives as the greedy party?

THOMAS FRANK: Democrats can be conservatives too, of course. In fact, certain Democrats' embrace of the free-market faith has been just as consequential as the Republicans' own move to the right. When the Democrats gave up on FDR and came around to the ideology of Reagan, the opposition ceased to oppose.

But this was the subject of my 2000 book, ONE MARKET UNDER GOD, which discussed NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act at some length. THE WRECKING CREW is an effort to explain the particular species of corruption we see in Washington today.

Clinton's contributions here were not insignificant, but they were more passive than active. His celebration of outsourcing set up the government-for-profit of the Bush era. His war on federal wages ensured that government would remain an unattractive career option, especially when compared to what's offered by the contractors who are our de facto government today. His failure even to try to reverse certain initiatives of the Reagan years allowed them to harden into permanent fixtures of the Washington scene.

There are other forms of corruption that are particular to liberalism, and that occur more naturally among Democrats. But by and large, the particular mode of corruption I describe in this book is a Republican invention. True believers in the free-market way invented it and feel most comfortable in it. Most Democrats can be embarrassed by their relationship to lobbyists because publicly they pretend to be the "party of the people"; most Republicans are happy to say they believe in market-based government.

You go on to write that the political triumph of conservatism has coincided with the rise of the Washington area to the richest rank of American metropolises. But can't it be said that the ascendancy of liberalism turned government into the cornucopia of spending which became a vast feeding ground for predators of all stripes?

During its heyday, liberalism was often depicted in these terms-as a giveaway to special interests, handouts to organized whiners, pork-barrel projects like the TVA. There may have been some merit to those charges-they aren't my subject in this book so I don't know-but whatever they were, they are as nothing compared to the kind of money presently being sent down the chute to defense contractors and homeland-security operators and so on.

As for Washington's wealth, it is uniquely a phenomenon of the era of privatization and outsourcing, not of liberalism.

You seem to dismiss, if not denigrate, the term "culture of corruption." If that doesn't fit the nexus between K Street, the White House, Congress and contract-dispensing federal agencies, what does?

My problem with the term "culture of corruption" is that the word "culture" is being used generically-to mystify and accuse, not to define. I wanted to get down to specifics: What, exactly, is corrupt about this culture? How did it get that way? What's responsible for it? The Democrats' talk about a "culture of corruption" implies that simply voting for Democrats will fix it; when we know more about this culture we discover that it goes far too deep for such a simple solution.

You argue that the sprawling spectacle surrounding Jack Abramoff was not just a matter of a "few bad apples." So was the whole orchard rotten?

It's not the apples, it's the trees themselves. It's systemic. It's structural. It's the logical consequence of the philosophy of government currently in place. It has nothing to do with individuals except for the handful of geniuses who invented it all.

I read the muckraker David Graham Phillips, whom you quote in your book. A hundred years ago he was writing about The Treason of the Senate when the biggest names in the world's "greatest deliberative body" were serving "interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous; interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people." Ralph Nader couldn't say it better. So what's new?

Morally, those sentiments are right on-target. What's new is (a) the unthinkable is back; (b) it's infinitely more complex; and (c) it's ideological. The Vanderbilts had their own U.S. Senator because that way they could grab more, but the people doing it today are motivated at least partially by ideology. They have a theoretical justification for what they've done: the market is always and in every case better than the bureaucracy.

What's more, many of the people I describe in the book understand themselves as crusaders against corruption. They think *they* are the muckrakers, demanding more and more deregulation or privatization. Government should get out of the marketplace altogether. By what right does it regulate insider trading or price fixing? Get off our backs!

You require several pages — riveting pages, I will admit — to describe a "fantastic misgovernment." Distill the essence of it for a bumper sticker or t-shirt.

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad.

Or: Cynicism spawns corruption, which spawns cynicism.

Or: Bring back the regulators before the system self-destructs.

Conservatives are fond of writing op-eds and going on television to say, "Don't look at us. It was the Republicans!" Are we really talking about a colossal case of mistaken identity here? Were the souls of conservatives actually hijacked and implanted in Republican bodies bought at a local taxidermist shop?

It is true that not all Republicans are conservatives — we used to have some pretty liberal ones out in the midwest. Also some pretty clean ones, especially in Kansas City, where the Dems were the party of Pendergast.

But the distinction is constantly abused by conservatives in order to get their movement off the hook when their one-time leaders' numbers plummet. One day Jack Abramoff is their maximum leader; when it's discovered that he's been ripping off his clients, suddenly he's not a conservative anymore. One day George W. Bush is thought to be in daily contact with the Almighty; when his numbers tank, he's an "impostor" who's tricked the movement. They once said the same things about Reagan, incidentally.

Incidentally, all of this is a basic logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman." Scotsman A says, "No Scotsman puts soy milk on his porridge." Scotsman B says, oh yeah? I know a Scotsman who puts soy milk on his porridge. Scotsman A then replies, "well, no *true* Scotsman puts soy milk on his porridge."

Many years ago I reported for a documentary on the Iran-Contra scandal — when President Reagan was waging a "secret" war against the Sandinistas and his hirelings in the basement of the White House traded arms for hostages to finance it. In your description of that scandal you write that two great conservative themes converged: "freedom fighters" and political entrepreneurship. Right?

Yes. The right of those years was infatuated with the idea of "freedom fighters" — the contras in Nicaragua, the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, Jonas Savimbi in Angola, and whatever that brutal gang was called in Mozambique. To conservatives these guys seemed to represent a kind of sixties in reverse, in which the glamorous guerrillas were now on our side. And, yes, they thought Jonas Savimbi was glamorous.

They supported these figures with entreneurial methods: asking millionaires to contribute to nonprofits which would then buy supplies for the contras (and supplies for the fundraiser); transforming their control of the state into cash (selling weapons to Iran). Their ultimate ambition was supposed to be called "The Enterprise": a foreign policy instrument completely free from the scrutiny of Congress.

And you think some of what we've seen under this regime evolved — pardon the secular language — from that convergence?

The entrepreneurship is officially woven into the fabric of the state now: "Government should be market-based," Bush says. Entrepreneurship is what gave you both the catastrophic depopulating of FEMA and the lucrative but ineffectual recovery effort after Katrina. Or look at Iraq, where much of our foreign-policy apparatus is indeed private and is almost completely beyond scrutiny. Try phoning Blackwater and asking them why they do the things they do.

Two years ago my documentary "Capitol Crimes," which we're repeating and updating this Friday night, reported on how conservatives in Washington ganged up to promote sweat shops on American territory. You devote a chapter to this story and call it "Bantustan That Roared." Give our readers a peek into what you mean.

"Bantustans," or "homelands," were a tool of the apartheid government in South Africa. They were supposedly separate countries in which the black population could be theoretically housed, leaving South Africa proper for the whites. Generally speaking, the bantustans had two industries: casino gambling and low-wage manufacturing. One of them was ferociously libertarian, and much beloved of American conservatives. And they were all propped up ideologically by appeals to racial or ethnic pride.

Each of these elements was present in Saipan, to one degree or another. The raging libertarianism, the casino gambling, the sweatshop manufacturing-exploiting, in this case, imported Filipinos and Chinese-and the constant use of ethnic pride to excuse the whole rotten thing. I say Saipan "roared" because, while the bantustans pretty much sucked for everyone who lived there, it has been a great success for some.

Tom DeLay went there with a gaggle of conservatives in two and called the sweat shops "a petri dish of capitalism." How about that for a vision of America's future?

DeLay was right. That's what we're becoming. Democracy is over. It's rule by money, now: plutocracy, the pre-thirties system.

What do you make of the fact that Norquist is still riding high, despite the seamy business he carried on of using his organization to funnel money from Abramoff's clients to Ralph Reed? Does his constituency just not care about such things?

Apparently not. Maybe they think Norquist is just a good entrepreneur. I met him, by the way, and found him a charming and very intelligent man.

Who are the real casualties of THE WRECKING CREW?

It's ordinary working people. Thirty or forty years ago, it was possible to work a blue-collar job and enjoy a middle-class standard of living. In fact, it was common. It was the American way. The reason it was so common, though, was because we decided to make it that way and used government as our instrument. That instrument is no longer under our control. Someone else is at the wheel, and they're steering us in a different direction.

So can good little liberals go to bed at night now and sleep soundly knowing the Good Democrats have slain the monsters and reclaimed the castle?

No. Unfortunately, the system I describe is part of the landscape in Washington now. It's structural. It's an industry. It's not going down without an enormous fight. Besides, rather than putting away this very profitable game, a lot of Democrats seem excited to try their hand at it.

(Other Democrats, though, are trying to get to the bottom of things. Some Republicans, too. There used to be one called John McCain that I liked.)

Years ago the WALL STREET JOURNAL banned subversive — liberal — writers from their editorial pages. Suddenly you pop up as a columnist on the op-ed page. Are you Rupert Murdoch's fig leaf?

How did it happen? This wasn't supposed to be the Age of Miracles.

I have never met or spoken to Rupert Murdoch. The editor of their op-ed page is the one who offered me a spot. I was as surprised by the invitation as you are, since one of my previous books was basically an extended commentary on the JOURNAL's opinion page over the course of the 1990s.

I personally think that one of the reasons I've ended up at the JOURNAL is, ironically, the famous "liberal bias" critique. I've always suspected that one of the reasons I've never been offered a regular, permanent place in any prominent mainstream publication is that everyone in big-media-land is terrified of seeming too liberal, and hiring someone like me would obviously expose them to terrific blasts from the right. Well, one of the only publications in America that is totally immune to that critique is the WALL STREET JOURNAL. Which means they're free to hire me.

Has living in Washington made you cynical? Or was it the ripping of the veil in "The Wizard of Oz" that destroyed your faith?

The literature of Washington is, by and large, the literature of cynicism and disillusionment. I wanted to update it for our time. But I prefer the word "skeptical," since I believe good government is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:33 AM

exerpt
Introduction: Follow This Dime

Washington is the city where the scandals happen. Every American knows this, but we also believe, if only vaguely, that the really monumental scandals are a thing of the past; that the golden age of misgovernment-for-profit ended with the cavalry charge and the robber barons, at about the same time presidents stopped wearing beards.

I moved to Washington in 2003, just in time for the comeback, for the hundred-year flood. At first it was only a trickle in the basement, a little stream released accidentally by the president's friends at Enron. Before long, though, the levees were failing all over town, and the city was inundated with a muddy torrent of graft.

How are we to dissect a deluge like this one? We might begin by categorizing the earmarks handed out by Congress, sorting the foolish earmarks from the costly earmarks from the earmarks made strictly on a cash basis. We could try a similar approach to government contracting: the no-bid contracts, the no-oversight contracts, the no-experience contracts, the contracts handed out to friends of the vice president. We might consider the shoplifting career of one of the president's former domestic policy advisers or the habitual plagiarism of the president's liaison to the Christian right. And we would certainly have to find some way to parse the extraordinary incompetence of the executive branch, incompetence so fulsome and steady and reliable that at some point Americans stopped being surprised and began simply to count on it, to think of incompetence as the way government works.

But the onrushing flow swamps all taxonomies. Mass firing of federal prosecutors; bribing of newspaper columnists; pallets of shrinkwrapped cash "misplaced" in Iraq; inexperienced kids running the Baghdad stock exchange; the discovery that many of Alaska's leading politicians are on the take—our heads swim. We climb to the rooftop, but we cannot find the heights of irony from which we might laugh off the blend of thug and pharisee that is Tom DeLay—or dispel the nauseating suspicion, quickly becoming a certainty, that the government of our nation deliberately fibbed us into a pointless, catastrophic war.

So let us begin on the solid ground of these simple facts: this spectacular episode of misrule has coincided with both the political triumph of conservatism and with the rise of the Washington area to the richest rank of American metropolises. In the period I am describing, gentlemen of the right rolled through the capital like lords of creation. Every spigot was open, and every indulgence slopped out for their gleeful wallowing. All the clichés roared at full, unembarrassed volume: the wines gurgled, the T bones roasted, the golf courses beckoned, the Learjets zoomed, the contractors' glass buildings sprouted from the earth, and the lobbyists' mansions grew like brick-colonial mushrooms on the hills of northern Virginia.

Democrats have tried to explain the flood of misgovernment as part of a "culture of corruption," a phrase at once obviously true and yet so amorphous as to be quite worthless. Republicans, for their part, have an even simpler answer: government failed, they tell us, because it is the nature of government enterprises to fail. As for the great corruption cases of recent years, they cluck, each is merely a one-of-a kind moral lapse unconnected to any particular ideology—an individual bad apple with no effect on the larger barrel.

Which leaves us to marvel helplessly at what appears to be a spectacular run of lousy luck. My, what a lot of bad apples they are growing these days!

…

The truth is almost exactly the opposite: Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction; it believes in entrepreneurship not merely in commerce but in politics; and the inevitable results of its ascendance are, first, the capture of the state by business and, second, all that follows: incompetence, graft, and all the other wretched flotsam that we've come to expect from Washington.

The correct diagnosis is the "bad apple" thesis turned upside down. There are plenty of good conservative individuals, honorable folks who would never participate in the sort of corruption we have watched unfold over the last few years. Hang around with grassroots conservative voters in Kansas, and in the main you will find them to be honest, hardworking people.

But put conservatism in charge of the state, and it behaves very differently. Now the "values" that rightist politicians eulogize on the stump disappear, and in their place we can discern an entirely different set of priorities—priorities that reveal more about the unchanging historical essence of American conservatism than do its fleeting campaigns against gay marriage or secular humanism. Conservative's leaders laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Every mispent trillion dollars or lost 500 billion is nearly doubled by interest over decades for that borrowed money.
IT used to be a stratedgy to leave the democrates with no money for their agendas except to pay down the debt.

Now it has gone beyond that has put the nation in peril of no global trust and for the existence of a prosperous nation for generations.
dh

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:07 AM

The McCain of the Week


By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 17, 2008
VIENNA, Ohio


"The people of Ohio are the most productive in the world!" yelled John McCain at a rally outside of Youngstown on Tuesday. Present company perhaps excluded, since the crowd was made up entirely of people who were at liberty in the middle of a workday.

Folks were wildly enthusiastic as the event began. That was partly because Sarah Palin was also on the bill. (With Todd!) And when McCain took the center stage, they were itching to cheer the war hero and boo all references to pork-barrel spenders.

Nobody had warned them that he had just morphed into a new persona — a raging populist demanding more regulation of the nation's financial system. And since McCain's willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long.

Really, if McCain is going to keep changing into new people, the campaign should send out notices. (Come to a rally for the next president of the United States. Today he's a vegetarian!)

"We're going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street — enough is enough!" this new incarnation yelled, complaining angrily about greed and overpaid C.E.O.'s. Slowly, people begin to peel out of the crowd and drift away. Even in these troubled times, there are apparently a number of Republicans who think highly of corporate executives and captains of high finance.

The whole transformation was fascinating in a cheap-thrills kind of way. It's not every day, outside of "Incredible Hulk" movies, that you see somebody make this kind of turnaround in the scope of a few hours.
... (NYT Columnist Gail Collins. More here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:17 AM

I think after McCain gets elected, everything will settle out and we'll be perfectly fine...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:33 AM

WHich one are you rooting for, Rig? We seem to be dealing with a multiple personality situation in the aging body of John McCain. Got forbid the wrong "Who" gets sworn in as President of Whoville.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:07 PM

At this point, I'm not really rooting for anybody, but I don't like a one sided conversation.

                I listened to Ralph Nader talk about the economy over the weekend, and I really think if he could get elected he would make a super-human effort to fix a lot of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:24 AM

I meant, "Which version of John McCain?".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 07:32 AM

Oh! Well actually I really think there is only one John McCain, and he hasn't really changed at all. He is doing, though, what he thinks he needs to do in order to get elected.
                I think what we are seeing now is a direct result of what happened to McCain in the primary of 2000. He was simply Roved to death. It worked for GWB, and got the stupidest idiot since Ronald Reagan elected to the White House. He's gambling that it will work again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:51 AM

WIth a similar outcome!! Smart...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:53 AM

The problem being, the alternative is worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 10:09 AM

RIg:

I seriously disagree. I think another right-wing presidency could really ruinate the country beyond recovery.

At least, in Obama, we have a person who understand the importance of individual rights AND individual responsibility. On the right end its more like "individual priveleges and individual blame".

Something worth reflecting on. BEsides, we've been suffering fromt hese SKull and Bones Yalies for years, and look where it has gotten us. Surely it is time for a Harvard man with better than a C average. They tend to be smarter than D+ Yalies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:17 AM

Mr. McCain lied first, in a Spanish-language ad that accused Mr. Obama of helping to kill immigration reform last year, by voting for amendments that supposedly doomed a bipartisan bill. The ad lamented the result: "No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side?"

That is a jaw-dropping distortion. The bill wasn't killed by any amendments. It was killed by a firestorm of talk-radio rage and a Republican-led filibuster. The very bill that Mr. McCain now mourns is the one he sidled away from as his own party weakened and killed it. It's the one he says he would now vote against.

For Mr. McCain to suggest that Mr. Obama opposes the "path to citizenship" and "guest worker program" compounds his dishonesty. Mr. Obama supports the three pillars of comprehensive reform — tougher enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here.

Mr. McCain was an architect of just such a comprehensive bill. But he is also leading a party whose members rabidly oppose the path to citizenship. So, in deference to them, Mr. McCain now emphasizes border security as the utmost priority. Except when he's pandering in Spanish. ...

(NYT Columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:47 AM

Elizabeth Drew, the McCain admirer who wrote "Citizen McCain" in 2002 writes an essay in 2008 describing how John McCain lost her support. Interesting perspective.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 08:23 PM

McCain's relationship to "big oil" interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:39 PM

"Surely it is time for a Harvard man with better than a C average."


               If that man is an affirmative action candidate, is that something like a homerun hitter on steroids?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:34 PM

"Mr. McCain, on Monday you repeated your delusional notion that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Now, the federal government is working on a deal to save that economy from collapsing. You have admitted that the economy is not your forte, so you could have used a running mate with some financial chops. (Remember Mitt Romney?)

But no. Who did you pick? SnowJob SquareGlasses whose financial credentials include running Wasilla into debt, listing (but not selling) a plane on EBay and flip-flopping on a bridge to wherever. In fact, when it comes to real issues in general, she may prove to be a liability.

In what respect, you may ask?

It turns out that the Republican enthusiasm for Sarah Palin is just as superficial as she is. They were so eager for someone to cheer for (because they really don't like you) that they dove face first into the Palin mirage. But, on the issues, even they worry about her.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted this week 77 percent of Republicans said that they had a favorable opinion of Palin. But when asked what specifically they liked about her, their top five reasons were that she was honest, tough, caring, outspoken and fresh-faced. Sounds like a talk-show host, not a vice president. (By the way, her intelligence was in a three-way tie for eighth place, right behind "I just like her.")

When those Republicans were asked what they liked least about her, they started to sound more like everyone else. Aside from those who said that there was nothing they didn't like, next on the list were: her lack of experience, her record as governor and her lack of foreign-policy experience.

Also, most Republicans think you only picked her to help with the election, not because she is qualified, and a third said that they would be "concerned" if for some reason she actually had to serve as president.

And Palin is proving to be just as vacant as people suspected. In her interview with Charles Gibson last week, she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was. At your first joint town hall meeting with her in Michigan on Wednesday, in front of an invitation-only crowd of Republicans no less, she dodged substantive questions about the issues as if they were sniper fire, while issuing a faux challenge to the audience to play a game of "stump the candidate". Seriously?

Many of your supporters will no doubt cry sexism. Fine with me. But that defense rings hollow. I find many of them to be sexist. Fresh-faced? Delegates on the floor of the Republican National Convention wearing buttons like "Hoosiers for the hot chick"?

Seriously...."

(Charles Blow, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:41 PM

Reagan suffered from the onslaught of Alzheimers. McCain seems to have similar behavioral symptoms.

McCain is a symbolic figure for the GOP with no definable or useful policy prescriptions for
the problems besetting the economy. Palin is also an American Idol personality with very
little talent.

People in America have been so dumbed-down that they elect a president not on qualifications for the office but because they represent so-called "Christian values"
based on ignorance. Palin is subject A.

Until this country gets its priorities right and encourages intelligence, education and compassion in those running for public office, we will be here in four more wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: DougR
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 01:18 AM

Donuel: I'm delighted you beat Amos to starting this thread. When McCain is elected, you can modify the title to "Popular views on the McCain Administration, edging out Amos' thread, "Popular views of the Bush Administration," which existed, I believe, during the entire eight years of that administration. Despite Bush cleaning Gore's plow in the last presidential election when Bush won both the popular and Electoral College vote.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 03:28 AM

NOT until 2004 could the 9/11 commission at last reveal the title of the intelligence briefing President Bush ignored on Aug. 6, 2001, in Crawford: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." No wonder John McCain called for a new "9/11 commission" to "get to the bottom" of 9/14, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers set off another kind of blood bath in Lower Manhattan. Put a slo-mo Beltway panel in charge, and Election Day will be ancient history before we get to the bottom of just how little he and the president did to defend America against a devastating new threat on their watch.


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Frank Rich
Go to Columnist Page »
Enlarge This Image

Barry Blitt
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this article.
Post a Comment »
For better or worse, the candidacy of Barack Obama, a senator-come-lately, must be evaluated on his judgment, ideas and potential to lead. McCain, by contrast, has been chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, where he claims to have overseen "every part of our economy." He didn't, thank heavens, but he does have a long and relevant economic record that begins with the Keating Five scandal of 1989 and extends to this campaign, where his fiscal policies bear the fingerprints of Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina. It's not the résumé that a presidential candidate wants to advertise as America faces its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That's why the main thrust of the McCain campaign has been to cover up his history of economic malpractice.

McCain has largely pulled it off so far, under the guidance of Steve Schmidt, a Karl Rove protégé. A Rovian political strategy by definition means all slime, all the time. But the more crucial Rove game plan is to envelop the entire presidential race in a thick fog of truthiness. All campaigns, Obama's included, engage in false attacks. But McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates keep repeating the same lies over and over not just to smear their opponents and not just to mask their own record. Their larger aim is to construct a bogus alternative reality so relentless it can overwhelm any haphazard journalistic stabs at puncturing it.

When a McCain spokesman told Politico a week ago that "we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say" about the campaign's incessant fictions, he was channeling a famous Bush dictum of 2003: "Somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter." In Bush's case, the lies lobbed over the heads of the press were to sell the war in Iraq. That propaganda blitz, devised by a secret White House Iraq Group that included Rove, was a triumph. In mere months, Americans came to believe that Saddam Hussein had aided the 9/11 attacks and even that Iraqis were among the hijackers. A largely cowed press failed to set the record straight. (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 03:32 AM

The rest of Frank Rish on McCain:

"Network news, with its dwindling handful of investigative reporters, has barely mentioned, let alone advanced, major new print revelations about Cindy McCain's drug-addiction history (in The Washington Post) and the rampant cronyism and secrecy in Palin's governance of Alaska (in last Sunday's New York Times). At least the networks repeatedly fact-check the low-hanging fruit among the countless Palin lies, but John McCain's past usually remains off limits.

That's strange since the indisputable historical antecedent for our current crisis is the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the go-go 1980s. When Charles Keating's bank went belly up because of risky, unregulated investments, it wiped out its depositors' savings and cost taxpayers more than $3 billion. More than 1,000 other S.&L. institutions capsized nationwide.

It was ugly for the McCains. He had received more than $100,000 in Keating campaign contributions, and both McCains had repeatedly hopped on Keating's corporate jet. Cindy McCain and her beer-magnate father had invested nearly $360,000 in a Keating shopping center a year before her husband joined four senators in inappropriate meetings with regulators charged with S.&L. oversight.

After Congressional hearings, McCain was reprimanded for "poor judgment." He had committed no crime and had not intervened to protect Keating from ruin. Yet he, like many deregulators in his party, was guilty of bankrupt policy-making before disaster struck. He was among the sponsors of a House resolution calling for the delay of regulations intended to deter risky investments just like those that brought down Lincoln and its ilk.

Ever since, McCain has publicly thrashed himself for his mistakes back then — and boasted of the lessons he learned. He embraced campaign finance reform to rebrand himself as a "maverick." But whatever lessons he learned are now forgotten.

For all his fiery calls last week for a Wall Street crackdown, McCain opposed the very regulations that might have helped avert the current catastrophe. In 1999, he supported a law co-authored by Gramm (and ultimately signed by Bill Clinton) that revoked the New Deal reforms intended to prevent commercial banks, insurance companies and investment banks from mingling their businesses. Equally laughable is the McCain-Palin ticket's born-again outrage over the greed of Wall Street C.E.O.'s. When McCain's chief financial surrogate, Fiorina, was fired as Hewlett-Packard's chief executive after a 50 percent drop in shareholders' value and 20,000 pink slips, she took home a package worth $42 million.

The McCain campaign canceled Fiorina's television appearances last week after she inadvertently admitted that Palin was unqualified to run a corporation. But that doesn't mean Fiorina is gone. Gramm, too, was ostentatiously exiled after he blamed the economic meltdown on our "nation of whiners" and "mental recession," but he remains in the McCain loop.

The corporate jets, lobbyists and sleazes that gravitated around McCain in the Keating era have also reappeared in new incarnations. The Nation's Web site recently unearthed a photo of the resolutely anticelebrity McCain being greeted by the con man Raffaello Follieri and his then girlfriend, the Hollywood actress Anne Hathaway, as McCain celebrated his 70th birthday on Follieri's rented yacht in Montenegro in August 2006. It's the perfect bookend to the old pictures of McCain in a funny hat partying with Keating in the Bahamas.

Whatever blanks are yet to be filled in on Obama, we at least know his economic plans and the known quantities who are shaping them (Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker). McCain has reversed himself on every single economic issue this year, often within a 24-hour period, whether he's judging the strength of the economy's fundamentals or the wisdom of the government bailout of A.I.G. He once promised that he'd run every decision past Alan Greenspan — and even have him write a new tax code — but Greenspan has jumped ship rather than support McCain's biggest flip-flop, his expansion of the Bush tax cuts. McCain's official chief economic adviser is now Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who last week declared that McCain had "helped create" the BlackBerry.

But Holtz-Eakin's most telling statement was about McCain's economic plans — namely, that the details are irrelevant. "I don't think it's imperative at this moment to write down what the plan should be," he said. "The real issue here is a leadership issue." This, too, is a Rove-Bush replay. We want a tough guy who will "fix" things with his own two hands — let's take out the S.E.C. chairman! — instead of wimpy Frenchified Democrats who just "talk." The fine print of policy is superfluous if there's a quick-draw decider in the White House.

The twin-pronged strategy of truculence and propaganda that sold Bush and his war could yet work for McCain. Even now his campaign has kept the "filter" from learning the very basics about his fitness to serve as president — his finances and his health. The McCain multihousehold's multimillion-dollar mother lode is buried in Cindy McCain's still-unreleased complete tax returns. John McCain's full medical records, our sole index to the odds of an imminent Palin presidency, also remain locked away. The McCain campaign instead invited 20 chosen reporters to speed-read through 1,173 pages of medical history for a mere three hours on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend. No photocopying was permitted.

This is the same tactic of selective document release that the Bush White House used to bamboozle Congress and the press about Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D. As truthiness repeats itself, so may history, and not as farce.?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 03:59 AM

The McCain campaign is the Old Boy Network...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVPNXzopdJQ

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 08:47 AM

"Whatever blanks are yet to be filled in on Obama, we at least know his economic plans and the known quantities who are shaping them (Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker)."


                        Paul Volcker - Isn't that they guy who destroyed Jimmy Carter?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 11:40 AM

How so? And if so, so what?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 05:42 PM

I suspect that George H.W. Bush is tha man that destroyed Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 05:53 PM

"How so? And if so, so what?"

                As chairman of the Federal Reserve, he jacked interest rates through the ceiling, while Carter was trying to get them down. Then, just before the election, he raised them again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 06:07 PM

Why "realists" on the right are a little worried about John McCain.

SOme interesting remarks on the personalization of politics.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 07:37 AM

The "mavericks" are "Bushites":

"When Gov. Sarah Palin flew home to Alaska for the first time since being named the Republican vice presidential nominee, she brought along at least half a dozen new advisers to conduct briefings, stage-manage her first television interview and help her prepare for a critical debate next month.

And virtually every member of the team shared a common credential: years of service to President Bush.

From Mark Wallace, a Bush appointee to the United Nations, to Tucker Eskew, who ran strategic communications for the Bush White House, to Greg Jenkins, who served as the deputy assistant to Bush in his first term and was executive director of the 2004 inauguration, Palin was surrounded on the trip home by operatives deeply rooted in the Bush administration.

The clutch of Bush veterans helping to coach Palin reflects a larger reality about Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign: Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, it is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years."

WaPO

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 08:52 AM

"The Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers. Of those 177 lobbyists, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks."
-- Mother Jones magazine

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 03:23 PM

In an ongoing battle between the candidates to appear more down-to-earth, the Democrat's campaign branded the Republican as out of touch and guilty of betraying US workers, after it was reported that Mr McCain and his wife Cindy's vehicle collection included a Toyota, Honda and a Volkswagen.

Mrs McCain's principle car, according to investigations of public records by Newsweek, is a Lexus with the private number plate "Ms Bud", which is registered to the Budweiser beer distributorship and fortune she inherited from her father.

Mr McCain said in a recent interview with a television station in Detroit, the heart of the struggling US car industry that "I've bought American literally all my life and I'm proud".

But the United Auto Workers union (UAW), which has endorsed Mr Obama, accused the Arizona senator of deceit.

"When he's in the Midwest, he tells voters he supports the industry," UAW president Ron Gettelfinger said, referring to economically bereft battleground states.

"That's a really a nice campaign line, but it turns out that John McCain wasn't being straight with the people of Detroit," he added.

By contrast, Mr Obama and his wife Michelle own a single car: an environmentally friendly 2008 Ford Escape hybrid. It was purchased last year to replace the family's Chrysler, a "gas-guzzler" which was ditched after complaints that Mr Obama was lecturing Detroit on building more fuel-efficient cars.

It is the second time that Mr McCain's wealth, which is almost entirely derived from his wife, has become a campaign issue. In July he revealed that he did not know how many properties the couple owned. The answer was seven.

After Mr Obama made a remark about rural voters clinging to guns and religion in bad times, Mr McCain's campaign and his supporters have tried to portray the Democrat as an aloof liberal unfamiliar with ordinary people's priorities.

John and Cindy McCain's cars:

Cadillac CTS made by General Motors (US)

Volkswagen convertible (Germany)

Honda sedan (Japan)

Half-ton Ford pickup truck (US)

Willys Jeep (US)

Jeep Wrangler (US)

Lincoln (US)

GMC SUV (US)

Three NEV Gem electric vehicles - bubble-shaped cars popular in retirement communities (US)

Lexus - registered to Cindy McCain's family's beer business with MS BUD number plate (Japan)

Toyota Prius bought for daughter Meghan (Japan)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 04:24 PM

From a website called "Young Turks":

"John McCain published an article in the current issue of Contingencies magazine.

In the artice he wrote:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

As the young poster said, 'I have nothing to add'.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:20 PM

"Popular views on McCain..."


                   Brilliant, simpy brilliant!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:24 PM

McCain Aide's Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the
credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator
John McCain's campaign manager from the end of 2005 through
last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of
the arrangement. The disclosure contradicts a statement
Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick
Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last
several years.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 12:26 AM

Pay no attention to the Times--their reportage is hopelessly contaminated with facts!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 06:14 AM

Actually, it ignores facts!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 09:47 AM

Actually, it does not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 09:51 AM

"...But what happened after that was even more unusual, and possibly without precedent: McCain's supporters simply suggested that the truth or falsity of their statements didn't matter. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it." Republican strategist John Feehery made the point even more bluntly, telling The Washington Post: "The more The New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there, and the bigger truths are: She's new, she's popular in Alaska, and she is an insurgent." Then, he added, "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

Here we have the distilled essence of the McCain campaign's ethos: Perception is reality. Facts don't matter. McCain has presented himself as the grizzled champion of timeworn values. But the defining trait of his candidacy turns out to be a postmodern disdain for truth. How could McCain--a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one--have descended to this ignominious low? Part of the answer is that McCain is simply doing what works--and there is good reason to believe that his campaign's strategy of persistent dishonesty will pay dividends come November 4. ..." (New Republic)

---

We've gotten quite accustomed to having a Great Falsifier as head of state; perhaps it is time we threw off the addiction.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 01:15 PM

Rig- Please note that neither Rick Davis nor McCain denied the accusation. They simply attacked the newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 01:43 PM

The Kansas City Star did run a virulent denial and attack on the NYT for that story. They insisted Davis was not on the take, but the story did not say he was, as I recall, just that his firm benefited. So the denial kind of mismatche4d the allegations, and rebutted a paper tiger, easy to do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 02:03 PM

McCain's campaign manager linked to Freddie Mac
The aide's lobbying firm got payments from the troubled housing lender until last month, a source says.
From the Associated Press
September 24, 2008


"WASHINGTON -- The lobbying firm of John McCain's campaign manager was paid $15,000 a month for several years until last month by one of two housing companies taken over by the federal government, a person familiar with the financial arrangement said Tuesday night.

That money from Freddie Mac to Rick Davis' firm was on top of more than $30,000 a month that went directly to Davis for five years starting in 2000.



Blog: Top of the Ticket 2008 electoral vote mapCampaign '08 Daily Newsletter

The $30,000 a month came from both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the other housing entity now under government control because of the crisis in the financial markets.

All the payments were first reported by the New York Times, which posted a story on its website Tuesday night revealing the $15,000 a month to the firm of Davis Manafort. The newspaper quoted two people with knowledge of the arrangement.

In response to the disclosure, McCain's presidential campaign issued a statement saying Davis left the firm and stopped taking a salary in 2006.

A person familiar with the contract says the $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac to Davis' firm started around the end of 2005 and continued until about last month. The person spoke on condition of anonymity.

The connection between Davis and the housing giants that figure so centrally in the global financial crisis emerged after the McCain campaign unleashed a sharp attack on Democratic rival Barack Obama.

McCain has tried to tie Obama to Fannie's and Freddie's troubles and has called on Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines -- former Fannie Mae executives who are both Obama supporters -- to return million-dollar "golden parachute" payments they received from the corporation after leaving..;.."
(LA Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:55 PM

"The "Oh no, he didn't!" Award for today goes to Sen. John McCain with his announcement that he's suspending his presidential campaign tomorrow and wants to postpone Friday's debate with Sen. Barack Obama so that he can help negotiate the bipartisan bailout of America's wrecked financial system. Oh, and he's called on Obama to put politics aside and join him. That's certainly a bold move. But why now?

This has not been a good couple of weeks for McCain, and today has been horrendous. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Obama with a clear lead over the senator from Arizona for the very first time. As if that weren't bad enough, a national poll from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and battleground state polls from Marist appear to back up the contention that Obama is striking a chord with voters on the economy. This is giving him valuable momentum going into Friday's debate.

Then, as E.J. wrote about earlier, there was the front page New York Times story today contradicting McCain campaign assertions that the firm founded by campaign chief Rick Davis had had no dealings with Freddie Mac for three years. The story reports that Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, was paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month.

By making such a startling announcement this afternoon, McCain has managed to most certainly change the subject -- for now.

Maybe he's putting "country first." But coming 41 days before the election and on a day of tough news for McCain, forgive me for thinking that there's more than a bit of self-interest here...." (Capehart, WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 05:01 PM

How the McCain campaign misrepresents the will of the American public to the American public. A telling tale of rather slimy duplicity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 09:34 PM

"By making such a startling announcement this afternoon, McCain has managed to most certainly change the subject -- for now."


               Great move. Indicates to the voters why McCain is a much better choice than Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 11:12 PM

Because he's good at sliming out of issues?

Great move, bosh!! He's not needed in Washington, he's leaving UMiss in the lurch for over 5M bucks, and he's demonstrating he doesn't trust Sarah Palin to cover the campaign for him for a few days while he messes around where he's not needed.

Bah, humbug--he's degenerated into a poseur with Alzheimer's.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 01:34 AM

& he just left David Letterman in the lurch for another pretty faced newscaster. That was a wirlwind fling with Shara, is it over yet?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:11 PM

September 25, 2008
Bill Clinton lavishes praise on McCain
Posted: 01:41 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Clinton had kinds words for John McCain Thursday.

(CNN) – Bill Clinton has long pointed out he has enjoyed a good relationship with John McCain, but for a moment the former president almost sounded like a surrogate for the Republican presidential nominee Thursday morning.

Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America, Clinton said McCain's move to suspend his campaign and request a delay in the first presidential debate was a move done in "good faith," rather than as a stunt to halt falling poll numbers as several Democrats have alleged.

"I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted — I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that," Clinton said, sounding a familiar McCain Campaign talking point.

A few hours later Clinton lavished praise on McCain as he introduced him at the Clinton Global Initiative forum, saying Republican presidential nominee had taken the lead in his party when it comes to climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:16 PM

I amy have to go work for Barr...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:17 PM

The Republicans can keep Bill C. I gave up on him years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:48 PM

Alice - I would agree that America needs more than two parties, but Bill Clinton was a very good president, in my opinion. Maybe McCain will be as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:31 AM

How on earth does one make sense of it? The last week, he has plunged from one gimmick to another, finally landing on this transparently cynical bid to "suspend" his campaign until a bailout deal - then returning to Washington to actually say nothing while the deal collapsed:

At the bipartisan White House meeting that Mr. McCain had called for a day earlier, he sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting.

In rode the man on the white horse, whom no one really needed. And when he got there, he didn't resolve the impasse, and he didn't propose a plan. He just sat there, er, blinking. Now he's tied himself into the comic position that if this deal isn't made by tonight, he won't show up at the debate, so there.

It's like a seventeen year old going to their room and slamming the door when he can't be the center of attention. Matt Cooper notes:

McCain certainly hasn't helped and now we're at a point where a deal seems unlikely tomorrow in time for the debate which means McCain will have to make another decision--whether to swallow his pride and show up for the Meeting in Mississippi or be the biggest no-show in the history of American politics. Since he doesn't seem to have added anything to the negotiations in Washington, it's hard to see why on earth he should show up for the debate with Barack Obama.
If he shows up with no deal, he'll look beyond lame. If he shows up after the deal, he will not be able to say truthfully he had anything to do with it, especially if he now leads opposition to the bailout. All in all: it's very hard to know what is going on in his head, what stunt he's going to pull next, what new drama he wants to unveil. Calming, isn't it, to think what a McCain presidency would look like. Not boring, anyway.

(From Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:47 AM

Not boring is certainly better that Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:49 AM

And what did McCain's tagalong, Obama do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM

updated 2 hours, 7 minutes ago

   Commentary: McCain has his priorities straight

Story Highlights
Ruben Navarrette: John McCain should be commended for returning to Washington

McCain returned to Congress to work on proposed bailout deal with colleagues

Navarrette: Obama-friendly media quick to dismiss McCain wanting to delay debate

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
   
Editor's Note: Ruben Navarrette is a nationally syndicated columnist and a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read his column here


Ruben Navarrette Jr. says John McCain showed real leadership by trying to assist with the bailout deal.

(CNN) -- Talk about a last-minute reprieve. Tonight's presidential debate in Oxford, Mississippi was nearly a casualty of the financial crisis. It's back on schedule.

But hopefully, not back on script. Given all that took place this week, it's obvious that the format of the debate should be immediately revamped to focus not on foreign affairs and national security as planned but on the one subject every American is talking about: the economic crisis.

It would be surreal to watch Barack Obama and John McCain debate what to do in Baghdad or Kabul when the country's attention is fixed on Wall Street.

At some point, the candidates will have to make plain what they would do to fix the crisis, restore Americans' confidence and rally their respective parties in support of a common vision.

It's not enough for them to show that they understand the problem. They have to lead the way to a solution and show that they have the will, courage and strength to get us there.

Earlier this week, McCain abruptly suspended his campaign and requested that the debate be postponed until Congress finishes the heavy lifting of approving a bailout. That put Obama and McCain in a classic Mexican standoff with each trying to look presidential, while attempting to map out a course that would benefit him politically.

Some in the Obama-friendly media were quick to dismiss McCain's move as a political stunt. I don't know. It's not like launching one's candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, in the hopes of conjuring up comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, or moving one's convention speech to a football stadium to accommodate a larger crowd.

I think McCain deserves applause for having his priorities straight. For the past several days, the media and members of both parties have been scaring the daylights out of the American people by calling this the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.

This week, President Bush warned that our current situation threatens not just the lending industry but also the entire U.S. economy.

After all the doom and gloom, pundits were then somehow surprised when McCain decided to temporarily suspend his presidential campaign and return to his day job in Congress, where he tried to work out a bailout deal with his colleagues. Well at least most of his colleagues.

Despite having decried the economic crisis in near-apocalyptic terms in an attempt to lay blame on President Bush and, by association, McCain, the junior senator from Illinois didn't feel the urgency to show up for work and try to do what he could to address it. Obama certainly has standing and more than his share of influence. This is, after all, the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, he also looks like someone who is so focused on what he hopes will be his next job that he has lost interest in his current one.

McCain showed real leadership this week. And frankly, if we were more accustomed to seeing that sort of thing from our elected officials, we might be less cynical and better able to recognize it on the rare occasions when it surfaces. iReport.com: Are you planning to watch the debate?

The clock is running down on the Bush administration. It is almost time to hand off the baton. The financial crisis will no doubt become McCain's No. 1 agenda item if he is elected president. Or it will be Obama's No. 1 agenda item if he is elected.

This issue is as difficult as they come. I get that. It requires making sacrifices, wrestling with tough choices and telling Americans the hard and unpleasant truth -- all the things that politicians hate to do.

Too bad. The presidential candidates can't run from this issue any more than the rest of the country can. That's why both of them should have cleared their plate and gotten to work on a solution. But only one did.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:23 PM

Oh, so now John IS going to the debate after all, having shown the world what a heroic executive he is.


All the world's a stage, and this pompous septuagenarian wants to stand in the center of it. Did he contribute anything at all to the resolution of the banking crisis? If so I haven't seen a record of it.

Wodda showoff.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:25 PM

All the world's a stage, and this sanctimonious Chicago lawyer wants to stand in the center of it. Did he contribute anything at all to the resolution of the banking crisis? If so I haven't seen a record of it.

Wodda showoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:56 PM

Your talents as a mockingbird are without peer, Bruce, but it would be nice if you could come up with your own commubnications once in a while. This sort of grade-school mimicry is kind of below you, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 02:01 PM

I just find the appropriate use of your own words so ...


satisfying.



When you decide to discuss facts instead of opinion, you make a lot more sense- and at least do less damage to your "appointed" candidate's image.

I still use your tirades to show undecideds what kind of people support Obama- it has decided several of them- On McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 12:37 PM

McCain's Suspension Bridge to Nowhere

By FRANK RICH
Published: September 27, 2008
WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his "country first" will take the country down with him if that's what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night's deadlocked debate, it still can't obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn't care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street's bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington's legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress's middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he'd inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I'll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year. The other answers, all putting politics first, can be found by examining the 24 hours before he decided to "suspend" campaigning and swoop down on the Capitol to save America from the Sunnis or the Shia, or whoever perpetrated all those credit-default swaps.

To put these 24 hours in context, you must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a "once-in-a-century" catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong." As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. "I have not had a chance to see it in writing," he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

Then came Black Wednesday — not for the stock market, which was holding steady in anticipation of Washington action, but for McCain. As the widely accepted narrative has it, his come-to-Jesus moment arrived that morning, when he awoke to discover that Barack Obama had surged ahead by nine percentage points in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. The McCain campaign hastily suited up its own pollster to belittle that finding — only to be drowned out by a fusillade of new polls from Fox News, Marist and CNN/Time, each with numbers closer to Post/ABC than not. Obama was rising most everywhere except the moose strongholds of Alaska and Montana.

That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.

But even that wasn't the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.

What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama's own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain's senior adviser, his campaign's vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

By Wednesday, the McCain campaign's latest tactic for countering this news — attacking the press, especially The Times — was paying diminishing returns. Davis abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance that day at a weekly reporters' lunch sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, escaping any further questions by pleading that he had to hit the campaign trail. (He turned up at the "21" Club in New York that night, wining and dining McCain fund-raisers.)

It's then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was "the greatest crisis we've faced, clearly, since World War II" — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the "first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war." Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin's nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.

Yet even as he huffed and puffed about being a "leader," McCain took no action and felt no urgency. As his Congressional colleagues worked tirelessly in Washington, he malingered in New York. He checked out the suffering on Main Street (or perhaps High Street) by conferring with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Hillary-turned-McCain supporter best known for her fabulous London digs and her diatribes against Obama's elitism. McCain also found time to have a well-publicized chat with one of those celebrities he so disdains, Bono, and to give a self-promoting public speech at the Clinton Global Initiative.

There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn't find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus. This "suspension" ruse was an exact replay of McCain's self-righteous "suspension" of the G.O.P. convention as Hurricane Gustav arrived on Labor Day. "We will put aside our political hats and put on our American hats," he declared then, solemnly pledging that conventioneers would help those in need. But as anyone in the Twin Cities could see, the assembled put on their party hats instead, piling into the lobbyists' bacchanals earlier than scheduled, albeit on the down-low.

Much of the press paid lip service to McCain's new "suspension" as it had to its prototype. In truth, the only campaign activity McCain did drop was a Wednesday evening taping with David Letterman. Don't mess with Dave. Picking up where the "The View" left off in speaking truth to power, the uncharacteristically furious host hammered the absent McCain on and off for 40 minutes, repeatedly observing that the cancellation "didn't smell right."

In a journalistic coup de grâce worthy of "60 Minutes," Letterman went on to unmask his no-show guest as a liar. McCain had phoned himself that afternoon to say he was "getting on a plane immediately" to deal with the grave situation in Washington, Letterman told the audience. Then he showed video of McCain being touched up by a makeup artist while awaiting an interview by Couric that same evening at another CBS studio in New York.

It's not hard to guess why McCain had blown off Letterman for Couric at the last minute. The McCain campaign's high anxiety about the disastrous Couric-Palin sit-down was skyrocketing as advance excerpts flooded the Internet. By offering his own interview to Couric for the same night, McCain hoped (in vain) to dilute Palin's primacy on the "CBS Evening News."

Letterman's most mordant laughs on Wednesday came when he riffed about McCain's campaign "suspension": "Do you suspend your campaign? No, because that makes me think maybe there will be other things down the road, like if he's in the White House, he might just suspend being president. I mean, we've got a guy like that now!" ...

(From Frank Rich

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 12:41 PM

For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling
E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SAVE
SHARE

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: September 27, 2008
Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.

HONING AN IMAGE Senator John McCain, as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, at a hearing in 2005 to examine accusations of misconduct made by six Indian tribes against their former lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

Mr. McCain supported tax breaks for casinos over the years, including one that helped Foxwoods in Connecticut. He has also gambled there.
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party's evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.

The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain's campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world's second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain's current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain's affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.

As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America's casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.

"One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming" is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.

As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.

Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as "birds of prey." Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 01:08 PM

And why would all the gambling gurus be backing McCain? Because they know that if McCain is elected, people will have a lot more money in their pockets to take to the casinos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM

That's really silly, Rig.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 01:57 PM

Some candidates are running from the Bush Republican label by not using the word at all, but rather turning to the Grand Old Party (GOP) brand, but erroneously calling it the GOP Party (Grand Old Party Party). Dino Rossi, in WA, is listing himself on the ballot as GOP Party, instead of Republican Party. (Grand Old Party Party!)

Just opening her mouth on a shopping trip for cheesecake got Sarah into gaffe trouble again:

"Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists

Saturday night, while on a stop for cheesesteaks in South Philadelphia, Palin was questioned by a Temple graduate student about whether the U.S. should cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 02:43 PM

"Suppose John McCain had been in the White House in October 1962, facing one of the great tests of the modern presidency. If so, we might remember that period not as "the Cuban missile crisis" but as "World War III."


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof
On the Ground
Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Columnist Page »
As Mr. McCain demonstrated in Friday evening's debate, he is a serious foreign policy thinker who has traveled widely, and he certainly showed vision and bipartisanship in helping to repair relations with Vietnam. But it's equally clear that in recent years Mr. McCain has become impish cubed — impulsive, impetuous and impatient — and those are perilous qualities in a commander in chief.

Although he is frantically trying to distance himself from President Bush, Mr. McCain, by his own accounting, would be more Bushian in foreign policy than even Mr. Bush is now. While Mr. Bush has been forced to accept more sensible policies in his second term, Mr. McCain has become steadily more of a neocon in the cowboy role that Mr. Bush played in his first term, prone to solving problems with stealth bombers rather than United Nations resolutions.

Judging from Mr. McCain's own positions, he might well revive a cold war with Russia and could start a hot war with Iran or North Korea." (Kristoph, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 09:49 PM

"'If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.'


                That's a lot different than Obama's proposal of just simply invading Pakistan without pre-conditions.

                Palin will wise up real quick, I suspect, and quit responding to graduate students from Temple. One might very well be an operative of MoveOn.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:41 AM

Rigs, you have not looked at the Great Depression at all have you. Orginized Crime got it's real start & boost during the 20's & into the early 30's with the proabition era but the gambling that was not a big winner prior to the depression & probabition became the major side effect of the poverty when the depression hit. So much so that it was fought overe for the control of this quickly rising industry. It was realized very quickly by the bookies that when the economy was at it's worst that's when the poor have no hope & try all the more to gamble their way out of poverty. What the bookies knew then is a scientific fact now. Kind of like drilling our way out of our oil crsis, gambling our way out of poverty.

"Palin will wise up real quick, I suspect, and quit responding to graduate students from Temple"

So she needs to bite down hard on her foot so her mouth stays closed on her foot & she can't be heard, even when she does speak, great quality for a canidate. Why not just put duct take acoss her lips so we can't read them tell she gets in office & then we can find out what a lying idiot she is? It'll be to late by then, MaCain can't hide her from now till the elections though it seems aas if that's what he'd love to do, another idiot whose lost his village.

"That's a lot different than Obama's proposal of just simply invading Pakistan without pre-conditions"

That's not what Obama said & you know that Rig.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:46 AM

Rig:

Why would you try to put stupid words into the mouth of someone who hasn't said them? Is that intelligent? Civilized? Humane?

I'd say none of those.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:30 AM

"
"That's a lot different than Obama's proposal of just simply invading Pakistan without pre-conditions"

That's not what Obama said & you know that Rig."





Actually, he stated that he would send troops into Pakistan without that country's permission to get OBL.

ANd Pakistan is a nuclear power...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:41 AM

"Rigs, you have not looked at the Great Depression at all have you. Orginized Crime got it's real start & boost during the 20's & into the early 30's with the proabition era but the gambling that was not a big winner prior to the depression & probabition became the major side effect of the poverty when the depression hit."


                I think we need a correction of history here: The 1920's were known as "The Roaring Twenties," there was no depression.
Organized crime got it's start when the Volstead Act was passed, banning alcohol. When they discovered they couldn't control the use of the stuff, they legalized it. But they had a bunch of undercover buffoons on the payroll so they started passing laws against narcotics, even mild ones like marijuana. That gave the buffoons something to do, and it also kept organized crime in business.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:44 AM

"Why would you try to put stupid words into the mouth of someone who hasn't said them?"


               He [Obama] says different things at different times, depending on the group he's addressing. If some of the things he says are stupid, well...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:48 AM

"But when Obama said in a speech Wednesday that he would use military force to go after terrorists in Pakistan, even without President Pervez Musharraf's permission, Clinton did not join in the criticism of Obama by other Democrats.

That criticism only intensified yesterday.

"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Del.) said in a statement. "He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288_pf.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM

The Calin McPain campaign is doing their best to distance themselves from all their like minded friends in the white house and neo con fascist community but the best they can do so far is to blame Clinton Carter and Barney Franks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:38 AM

The actual context, as usual, puts a more reaosnable light on what Obama actually says, as opposed to what his detractors like to pretend he is saying.

"Yet for Obama, who opposed the Iraq invasion, the episode offered an opportunity for him to present his approach as entirely different from those of his colleagues. In a letter to supporters titled "The war we need to win," he called for the country to "stop fighting the wrong war" and to focus on the al-Qaeda threat, which he said became a lower priority after the Iraq war began.

U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent. Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world.

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.

The Obama campaign was still responding to the uproar late in the afternoon. "If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al-Qaeda targets like Osama bin Laden, Senator Obama would act and is confident that conventional means would be sufficient to take the target down," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman. "Frankly we're surprised that others would disagree.""

(Same article, different paragraph, as cited above from WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:34 PM

McCain is now calling for letting the "LITTLE GUY' hae a seat at the table. its almpst cute the way he says it.

As usual he says Obama is just in it for himself but MCain is for the country and victory and honor.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM

Rig:

That was a slimy evasion of your personal responsibility int he matter.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:08 PM

I don't have any personal responsibility in the matter. The struggle is between MoveOn.org and the people who care.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:33 PM

"Earlier this week, we learned that the McCain campaign had barred New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd from traveling on their plane, stranding her at an airport hotel in Pittsburgh as McCain's pool of reporters wended their way on without her ready skill at alliteration and musical theatre references. Since then, Dowd has had the opportunity to respond:

"I had had a great relationship with John McCain for 16 years, through columns he liked and didn't like. So at first I thought it was a mistake and doublechecked with the press office. They said I was banned from both planes for 'the foreseeable future.' Then [McCain spokeswoman] Nicolle Wallace was gloating about it to reporters on the Palin plane," Dowd wrote in an email.

"It was disappointing because I didn't think John McCain would ever be as dismissive of the First Amendment as Dick Cheney."

(From here.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:37 PM

"On Monday, John McCain had a truly combative meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, discussing heatedly everything from Sarah Palin to health care to the shine of his maverick brand.

McCain got near anger when it was suggested that the Straight Talk Express had taken a detour, challenging the questioner to provide examples. Asked specifically about the kindergarten sex-ed ad, McCain defended it wholeheartedly.

"I have always had 100 percent absolute truth and that's been my life of putting my country first. And I'll match that record against anyone's. And I'm proud of it. And an assertion that I have ever done otherwise I take strong exception n to. And you will have to provide better proof than a bill that Sen. Obama supported that clearly calls for the teaching of sex education of young children."



McCain was equally as animated when asked about the qualifications of his running mate, Sarah Palin. At one point, he seemed to catch himself getting heated and deliberately backed off.

"So, with due respect, I strongly disagree with your premise that she doesn't have experience and knowledge and background," the Arizona Republican said. "And, by the way," McCain said before cutting himself off and saying, "I'll stop there. I fundamentally disagree and I'm proud of her record. But you and I just have a fundamental disagreement and I'm so happy that the American people seem to be siding with me," he said.

McCain dismissed Republicans who questioned Palin's experience as "Georgetown cocktail party" people who call themselves conservatives."

(His temper seems to be creeping up on him, leading him to make strong, belligerent statements that are not exactly true.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM

McCain is starting to get really creepy. What cause does he have to be proud of Palin's record? He didn't even know here until a few days before he picked her. Did he adopt her or take her as a second wife? Otherwise her record is her own and not something McCain can take pride in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:59 PM

You might as well insult his mother as call on a republican to take personal respondsibility.

I've done it, I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:36 PM

A bit of a sweeping generalization, there, Donuel. While I sympathize to some degree, I think even you will agree that Republicans (like any other group) come in all degrees of integrity and responsibility.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:05 PM

"...the McCain campaign had barred New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd from traveling on their plane,..."


                  It's about time that old hag started paying her own way!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 01:55 PM

There's a very thoughtful Op-Ed piece by film maker Ken Burns   here.

The readers' comments are not a true reflection of the NH electorate - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 02:00 PM

Generalizations generally get everybody in trouble.

Yet there are a certain brand of Republicans that even today say we need more deregulation, rich tax cuts and that the war is going swimmingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 02:07 PM

The link I am trying to post will not translate in the blickifier. The correct URL gets changed between c & p and making the link. Any ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 08:50 PM

Since the link won't work, I'm posting the entire op=ed piece by noted historien-film maker and former John McCain supporter. , Ken Burns. It's really worth reading, especially by those who are still McCain supporters - Tom

Ken Burns: This is not the John McCain NH once loved

By KEN BURNS

Sunday, Oct. 5, 2008

WHAT HAPPENED to John McCain? What happened to the man so many of us in New Hampshire have admired and respected for so long? The fierce bipartisan warrior, the straight talker, the maverick whose ideas nearly everyone found some common ground with now seems missing in action. He seems to have betrayed the very attributes that originally commended him to us and earned our earlier trust and support.

We continue to stand in awe of his heroic service to his country during Vietnam, but now he shamelessly uses those experiences at every opportunity, as if it excuses him from having to answer any really tough questions about the economy or foreign policy. The answer to everything is not to mention his admittedly harrowing POW days. My experience interviewing heroes of war is that most prefer to deflect attention from themselves and let their record speak for itself. McCain seems to think that it buys him a permanent pass. But it is impossible to know how to fight the new wars if you are hopelessly lost in the old ones.
Op-Ed Logo
Click for Editorials & Op-Eds

Surrounded and programmed by the lobbyists he once despised, the man who once effortlessly straddled the aisle and spoke from the heart now carefully hews to a prompter-read, soulless far-right agenda.

This is a man who once denounced and purposefully avoided the politics of personal destruction, having felt firsthand its painful consequences in 2000 in South Carolina, but who now wants to win at any cost. By ridiculing his opponent's commitment to public service, he has undermined the very reason we were drawn to McCain in the first place. By trying to steal the mantle of change from the Democrats, he demonstrates only the riskiness of his shoot-from-the-hip style. That may have worked in the Senate and on the campaign trail, but it is hardly presidential. In fact, it is frightening in the extreme and bespeaks an instability difficult to reconcile considering our complicated world and its myriad problems.

More to the point, he continues almost daily to demonstrate that instability and other judgmental and temperamental concerns, issues and complaints that originally brought a slew of challengers into the Republican primary contests. And in the most important decision of his candidacy, he cynically and irresponsibly chose the supremely unqualified Sarah Palin, cheapening the race as if it were some high school popularity contest or the latest "American Idol" competition.

Even the most ardent true-believers among us must be privately shaking in their boots contemplating a heart-beat-away Palin presidency during these difficult times. When Putin acts up, who do you want whispering in your President's ear: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?

McCain is a man who once championed openness and fairness in government, who now wants to continue the failed policies of the current administration and who increasingly wants to make the crucial decisions of our democracy behind closed doors with the same cronies who got us into this mess in the first place. And he has shown a profound indifference to and often startling ignorance of economic affairs just as our country inches toward depression.

That threatens to make him the next Herbert Hoover if he should win. And his old strong suit, foreign policy, is slipping away too, as gaffe after gaffe displays his fundamental shortcomings. I want my President to know the difference between a Sunni and Shia. John McCain does not.

We in New Hampshire bear some responsibility, I suppose. Thinking we had the old McCain, we gave him a decisive victory in our primary that permitted him to vanquish those challengers. But he betrayed us. If you have to say you're a maverick in your ads, it's clear you're not. The real maverick turns out to be Barack Obama, who bucked his party's establishment and whose once-lonely positions have been adopted by nearly everyone including even the Bush administration. Nearly everyone, that is, except John McCain. So what happened to him?

That's what Granite State citizens have been asking the last few months. The answer is enough to turn us blue.

Ken Burns of Walpole is the director of numerous award-winning documentary films. His latest, "The War," was the highest-rated program on PBS in the last decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 09:29 PM

The current strategy is to have Palin and McCain say WHo is Obama REALLY? and then have people 10 feet away yell into the mike "A TERRORIST!"

Today When Palin said "what are we going to do with Obama?"
Crowe members yelled 'KILL HIM!".


This is the John McCain who sees winning the hearts and minds to problem solve America's challenges by encouraging the murder of his opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 09:40 PM

McCain has found 1.3 Trillion dollars to cut from the budget
YAAAAAY

Its Medicare :<{

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 01:29 AM

""...the McCain campaign had barred New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd from traveling on their plane,..."
It's about time that old hag started paying her own way! " Rig

You may be thinking of Helen Thomas, shootingfromthelipRig. You yourself may well be older than Maureen Dowd.

But then facts don't matter all that much, do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: curmudgeon
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 07:54 AM

McCain and    Iran-Contra?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 09:03 AM

"You may be thinking of Helen Thomas, shootingfromthelipRig. You yourself may well be older than Maureen Dowd."


                   Yes, facts matter and Helen Thomas isn't a hag!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:35 AM

"

"I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don�t have much of a vision for the future or you�re not ready to articulate it."

-- John McCain, 2000


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:47 AM

Life is just a bowl of cherries
for the rich
ain't it a bitch
we get the pits.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM

toon
Federal Express delivery for for John McCain
McCain signs
A ton of bricks hit him on the head.
each brick says economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:12 AM

Attack ads are the only way McCain can get the public's attention. Millions of sheep have been programed by MoveOn.org to send money to his campaign, and he's buying up the media with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:31 AM

"Add Foo Fighters to the ever-growing list of artists angry that their music has been used by John McCain and his Straight Talk Express on the campaign trail. The Foos heard that McCain was using the band's The Colour and the Shape hit "My Hero" at rallies without ever seeking the permission from the band, their management, their record label or their publishers. "It's frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property. The saddest thing about this is that 'My Hero' was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential," the Foo Fighters said in a statement. "To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song. We hope that the McCain campaign will do the right thing and stop using our song — and start asking artists' permission in general!"

You would think his campaign would have learned to get permission after all the previous infringements they committed - John Mellencamp, Jackson Browne, Heart, Boston and Eddie Van Halen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:17 PM

I think I read someplace that songs can be used without the artist's permission if the rights were previously purchased by somebody else, a publisher, record label, or some such.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:34 PM

Nope. You can record it, without explicit permission, by paying a fee (mechanical copyright) to the copyright holder, but it's not free to use for just any purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:40 PM

I think if you look a little closer, Rig, you will find that the disdain for hate speech, and a modicum of personal integrity, is what motivates most MoveOn subscribers, rather than the fomenting and demagoguery so preferred by McSame and the Mindless Shrew of the NOrth.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:04 PM

"This, of course, is not the story McCain tells about himself. Few politicians have so actively, or successfully, crafted their own myth of greatness. In McCain's version of his life, he is a prodigal son who, steeled by his brutal internment in Vietnam, learned to put "country first." Remade by the Keating Five scandal that nearly wrecked his career, the story goes, McCain re-emerged as a "reformer" and a "maverick," righteously eschewing anything that "might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office."

It's a myth McCain has cultivated throughout his decades in Washington. But during the course of this year's campaign, the mask has slipped. "Let's face it," says Larry Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "John McCain made his reputation on the fact that he doesn't bend his principles for politics. That's just not true."

We have now watched McCain run twice for president. The first time he positioned himself as a principled centrist and decried the politics of Karl Rove and the influence of the religious right, imploring voters to judge candidates "by the example we set, by the way we conduct our campaigns, by the way we personally practice politics." After he lost in 2000, he jagged hard to the left — breaking with the president over taxes, drilling, judicial appointments, even flirting with joining the Democratic Party.

In his current campaign, however, McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance," promised more drilling and deeper tax cuts, even compromised his vaunted opposition to torture. Intent on winning the presidency at all costs, he has reassembled the very team that so viciously smeared him and his family eight years ago, selecting as his running mate a born-again moose hunter whose only qualification for office is her ability to electrify Rove's base. And he has engaged in a "practice of politics" so deceptive that even Rove himself has denounced it, saying that the outright lies in McCain's campaign ads go "too far" and fail the "truth test."

The missing piece of this puzzle, says a former McCain confidant who has fallen out with the senator over his neoconservatism, is a third, never realized, campaign that McCain intended to run against Bush in 2004. "McCain wanted a rematch, based on ethics, campaign finance and Enron — the corrupt relationship between Bush's team and the corporate sector," says the former friend, a prominent conservative thinker with whom McCain shared his plans over the course of several dinners in 2001. "But when 9/11 happened, McCain saw his chance to challenge Bush again was robbed. He saw 9/11 gave Bush and his failed presidency a second life. He saw Bush and Cheney's ability to draw stark contrasts between black and white, villains and good guys. And that's why McCain changed." (The McCain campaign did not respond to numerous requests for comment from Rolling Stone.)

Indeed, many leading Republicans who once admired McCain see his recent contortions to appease the GOP base as the undoing of a maverick. "John McCain's ambition overrode his basic character," says Rita Hauser, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2004. But the truth of the matter is that ambition is John McCain's basic character. Seen in the sweep of his seven-decade personal history, his pandering to the right is consistent with the only constant in his life: doing what's best for himself. To put the matter squarely: John McCain is his own special interest.

"John has made a pact with the devil," says Lincoln Chafee, the former GOP senator, who has been appalled at his one-time colleague's readiness to sacrifice principle for power. Chafee and McCain were the only Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts. They locked arms in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And they worked together in the "Gang of 14," which blocked some of Bush's worst judges from the federal bench.

"On all three — sadly, sadly, sadly — McCain has flip-flopped," Chafee says. And forget all the "Country First" sloganeering, he adds. "McCain is putting himself first. He's putting himself first in blinking neon lights."

"...(Excerpt from first link upthread to Rolling Stone)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:10 PM

bail out upsets Europe

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:23 PM

"...you will find that the disdain for hate speech, and a modicum of personal integrity,"


                   The only hate speech we've seen so far has come from Reverend Wright, and the lack of personal integrity materialized with ACORN.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:43 PM

Well, why not take of the blinders, and listen to some of McCain's recent slanders if you want a broader exposure to hatred? No sense hating just a little bit...you could go to some Palin rallies where they holler for Obama's head and call him awful names in order to solace themselves for being so absolutely misguided about basic human values and intelligence.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:46 PM

When an individual speaks as a "we" or "We've" followed by an absurd untrue myopic claim, I think of Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:57 PM

Well just keep thinking that way, and "WE'LL" get to the bottom of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:53 PM

Fact Checker gives McCain two "Pinocchios" for lying about the Obama-Ayers connection.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 09:27 AM

But Rezko is telling the truth now, and that's all that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:21 AM

Evidently McCain is having some misgivings about how his "demonization of Obama" campaign is going. His and Palin's crowds are getting more raucous and abusive, with calls of "Terrorist!"and "Kill him!" McCain actually pulled the microphone from one woman after she called Obama "an Arab" and told her that Obama was an American, a decent human being whom he disagreed with on major policy positions. He also told someone else (who was extremely angry that "untrustworthy" Obama might become President) that Obama would make a good President, although he McCain would make a better one, and then McCain was booed by the crowd.

McCain should be ashamed of himself for approving the "demonization campaign." And I hope he falls further and further behind in the polls. What a strategy for "uniting" the country! No wonder even George Will is repudiating what the McCain Campaign is doing.

It is difficult to see how the McCain Campaign can win nationally by appealing to their most "base" base (wing-nuts, racists, fascists, choose your own noun).

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:28 AM

600

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 11:17 AM

Rig:

I challenge you to identify exactly the relationship between Barack Obama and the ACORN group.

If you do pin down the facts you will find, I believe, that Obama was in no wise associated with their offenses.

"Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.

• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called "Motor Voter," Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. (For more about Barack's career, check out our Obama bio.)

Ken Blackwell is best known today for disenfranchising Democratic voters in his dual role as Ohio Secretary of State and chair of George Bush's Ohio campaign in 2004. To see him shed crocodile tears for the integrity of the vote while making accusations about Barack and ACORN with absolutely no basis in fact is disturbing.

Blackwell's attacks against ACORN and community organizers continue a vile Republican pattern of mockery and viciousness against this noble profession. Community organizers are the very individuals Republicans should be celebrating for helping people to help themselves rather than depending on the government."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM

If McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal doesn't disqualify him from being president, I don't think Obama has anything to worry about with regard to Rezko.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 01:56 PM

In response to the McCain campaign's frequent accusations that Obama is 'palling around with terrorists' an article on CNN Politics.com called "Fact Check: Is Obama 'Palling around with Terrorists'?", discusses the extent of the relationship between Obama and Ayers.

In 1995, Obama and Ayers both were involved in a Chicago public education improvement project called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

From 1999 to 2001, Obama and Ayers were both board members of a charitable foundation called the Woods Fund.

In 1999, Ayers hosted a campaign event for Obama in his bid for the Illinois State Senate.

The two have not spoken on the phone together or communicated by e-mail since 2005. But they did bump into each other on the street a little over a year ago, as they both live in the same neighborhood.

No evidence exists of a relationship between Obama and Ayers beyond what is noted here.

The article concludes:

There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 03:42 PM

"If McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal doesn't disqualify him from being president, I don't think Obama has anything to worry about with regard to Rezko."


                Not true. McCain was absolved of any wrong doing in the Keating investigation. He was only included in the original chargers so the the thing wouldn't look totally partisan. All the others were Democrats.

                As far as ACORN, it's amazing that nobody had any problem tying Obama to ACORN until the illegal voting came up. But we do know that he bankrolled them, and was associated with them in Chicago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 03:56 PM

No we don't dummy.

He did not bankroll them, and his "association" was limited, as far as I can tell, to representing them among others in some legal action not specifically tied to ACORN.

Why do you think it is okay to spew these unfounded generalities and pretend they are facts? Don't you think this is a disservice to the democratic process. spreading false impressions? Why aren't you more responsible for your own communications?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:17 PM

Well, for one thing, Obama has not been accused of anything. But I haven't even seen any insinuations that Obama did anything worse than what we know McCain did with Keating (receiving gifts and doing favors in return)...

http://mccainkeatingfive.com/

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2008/10/06/20081006keatingarchive1.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 09:30 PM

Well, we know now!


Federal Election Commission reports show ACORN-affiliated Citizens Services Inc. got $832,598 from the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote work during the primaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:00 PM

There's nothing illegal about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:42 AM

Hey, Riginslimer, you say : "Not true. McCain was absolved of any wrong doing in the Keating investigation. He was only included in the original chargers so the the thing wouldn't look totally partisan. All the others were Democrats."

McCain was "absolved of any wrong doing in the Keating investigation." He was not charged with a crime, it's true, but his colleagues did slap him with a "poor judgment" call on him and it stung.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:58 AM

Insert "not" in the correct spot.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 01:06 AM

"There's nothing illegal about that."


                   No, certainly not. All I said was Obama was bankrolling ACORN and I caught a lot of flak for it. It's true!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 02:31 AM

He employed them to do a job for a while. That's not at all the same thing as bankrolling them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:05 AM

Your use of the word bankroll is disingenuous and an intentional alteration of the facts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:17 AM

Hardly!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 02:36 PM

I looked up the Keating Five thing. As Rig said, all of them were Democrats but McCain (always the maverick, eh? Way to go).

According to Rosa Brooks, professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, in 'Keating Five Ring a Bell?', these are among the things that McCain enjoyed from Charles Keating:

* Contributions amounting to "about $200.000 in today's dollars"
* Several free vacations, for both McCain and his family
* Private jet trips*Other perks

In return, the Senator voted repeatedly "against Congressional efforts to tighten regulations of Savings and Loans and in 1987 when he learned that his constituent's savings and loans bank was the target of federal investigation he (McCain) met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off."

Among the exploits of Charles Keating:

Was investing his depositors' federally insured savings in risky ventures. When those lost money, Keathing tried to hide the losses from regulators by inducing his customers to switch from insured accounts to uninsured (and worthless) bonds issued by Lincoln's near-bankrupt parent company. In 1989, it went belly up - and more than 20,000 Lincolns customers saw their savings vanish."

Charles Keating went to prison.

"Together with the rest of the so-called Keating Five - Sens. Alan Cranston, D-California, John Glenn, D-Ohio, Don Riegle, D-Michigan and Dennis DeConcini, D-Arizona, all of whom had also accepted large donations from Keating and intervened on his behalf - McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and ultimately reprimanded dor "poor judgment."

I don't know what happened to the other Senators- but they are not runing for President of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:09 PM

"...the Senator voted repeatedly "against Congressional efforts to tighten regulations of Savings and Loans and in 1987..."


                  And with this EXPERIENCE, the senator tried to get the government to rein in the abuses a Fanny-Mae and Freddy-Mac(sp?)two years ago, and Obama and other Democrats prevented that from happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 03:25 PM

Someone over at Gather.com has made a list of One Hundred Reasons NOT to Vote for McCain.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 04:21 PM

"Vote for Obama
McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 13, 2008, at 10:44 AM ET
...The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 04:25 PM

"...her bizarre religious and political affiliations..."


                      When Christopher Hitchens sobers up, he'll realize that Obama's political and religious affiliations are even more bizarre than Palin's.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 05:17 PM

I just heard some voters call in to CNN news, including an Alaskan, to say that this divisive and hateful campaign that Palin and McCain have run is "unAmerican" - that Americans want a higher standard than that. He said Palin had been his mayor and now his governor, but what she is doing to incite anger and division is wrong and that voters will not stand for it. I was grateful to hear these people calling and speaking up against the bigotry and hatefulness.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:17 PM

I wonder if they gave him a dollar and a cigarette like ACORN gave that goofy kid in Missouri who registered 73 times?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:41 PM

You've beaten those dead horses long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 07:31 PM

Well, well, well...

Seems that the McCain cmapaign is going to try something new... Rather than just blast away at Obama as being a terrorist McCain now is saying he is ready to "fight"...

Ahhhhhh, excuse me but doesn't that beg the question "What have you been doing and if you don't think it has been fighting then just what made you think that you could wait until 3 weeks before to election to begin now???" In other words, if McCain thinks he has been slacking for the last year then what kind of president could ghe possibly be if there ain't much fight left in him???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:11 PM

Notice that McCain didn't say who are what he is fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:20 PM

Typo, sorry.


Notice that McCain didn't say who OR what he is fighting.

He is still repeating the dark insinuations trying to connect Ayers to Obama in some way as a terrorist link when Obama has stated clearly in the past that he did not agree with the Weatherman group and what Ayers did back in those protest days (when Obama was a child).

The McCain campaign just keeps looking more and more silly for trying to push this out as some kind of blemish on Obama. He is alienating the THINKING people in the Republican party by continuing this stupid Ayers connection slander. Every day, there are more and more Republicans announcing their dissatisfaction with the slimy tactics McCain has turned to. He used to be a person who spoke against this type of politicking. I used to admire McCain for his previous ways of speaking out against smear campaigns. Now he is leading one of the worst smear campaigns ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:24 PM

Governor Crist of Florida is one of the most recent Republicans to turn away from McCain. William Kristol has also written now about how McCain should drop the personal attacks on Obama and fire the campaign staff, because the smear tactic isn't working.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:28 PM

The staunch neo con Bill Crystal is now accused by the McCain campaign for being in the tank for Obama.

What are these tanks. Are they drunk tanks? Water tanks? Fuel tanks, or are they real Bradly Army tanks? And where are these tubes that the McCain campaign is going down?
If there are tanks, why are people in them for Obama instead of with Obama?

If you have an answer please let me know
tanks, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:37 PM

John McCain should distance himself from Bush by proving they are opposite.

While Bush graduated in the middle of his class with a gentleman's C, McCain graduated at the bottom of his class.

While Bush kept away from active duty and then mysteiously drfted away, McCain stayed with active duty before during and after his POW capture.

While Bush promised that America will not engage in regieme change or be a cop to the world, McCain promises that he will.


While Bush claimed he had lots of experience in economics as a govenor, oil driller and Baseball Team owner, McCain admits he knows little about the economy.

While Bush was young ish McCain is old ish.

etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:44 PM

"In the tank with..." is a modern expression meaning "aligned with", "on the side of". No particular sort of physical tank is implied. Not sure where the expression originated.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:35 PM

I heard Kristol on George Step-in-awful-stuff on Sunday, and again on NPR today. It didn't sound like he'd abandoned McCain to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:36 PM

"You've beaten those dead horses long enough."


                  Them horses ain't dead. Now the investigation has spread to two additional states.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:42 PM

It's an amazing thing to say, but I think John McCain would make an even worse president than George W. Bush. I really do.

I could be wrong, of course, but so could anyone else around here... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:48 PM

Maybe it would help to define a "good" and a "bad" president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:16 PM

Good: understands the history behind the job; understands the ideals behind the job; understands fully the terrible costs of warfare; can communicate intelligently with others on many levels; can inspire people toward a vision and organize to accomplish it.

I have seen no indication John McCain has any of these qualifications.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: TIA
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:21 PM

Rig:
Your Faux News is lying to you about ACORN. Please get just a little bit of info from a different source, and you will see that the true story is vastly different. There's a conspiracy alright, and its perpetrators have you thinking exactly what they intend. I honestly feel sorry for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:54 AM

Cindy McCain in this case (excerpts below)...

At a rally in Bethlehem, Pa. last week, Cindy McCain spoke about having two sons serving on active duty: "I'm proud of my sons, but let me tell you, the day that Senator Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body. I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day, and see what it means."

Never mind how many drinks are needed to erase the mental image of Barack Obama wearing Cindy McCain's stiletto heels. The fact is -- many military spouses support Obama-Biden, and they were deeply offended by Mrs. McCain's outburst.

Let's fact-check her remark, shall we?

Cindy McCain was referring to a single 2007 Senate vote: Obama voted for a war-spending bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq; but later he voted against a version of the same bill because it no longer included the withdrawal language. "We must fund our troops, but we owe them something more," Obama said at the time. "We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."

In other words, Sen. Obama wanted to fund the troops, he just didn't support the flawed military strategy this particular bill would enable. (Previously, Obama had voted YES on at least 10 other war funding bills. For a lengthy list of John McCain's NO votes on military funding, click here.)

"It ruffles our feathers when someone claims that Barack Obama doesn't support the troops, because the Obamas have gone out of their way to understand the military, its families, and its veterans," Stephanie Himel-Nelson, deputy director of outreach for Blue Star Families for Obama, told OffTheBus. "In fact, Michelle Obama has adopted military families as one of her causes."

Would Cindy McCain "Change Shoes" With These Military Wives?

"When millionaires such as Cindy McCain act as if they understand our lives, and the lives of everyday military families and veterans, we get upset," said Himel-Nelson.

Today the number of service men and women forced to deploy over and over again is unprecedented. Loneliness is leading to frayed marriages. Toddlers are just getting to know their parents when -- poof! -- mommy and daddy disappear to serve overseas again. Career paths are falling off track. Household budgets are in disarray...

...Deployments Are Lasting Longer, Coming Closer Together

Casey Spurr's husband has been deployed three times. "Mostly I find myself saying 'I wish your daddy was here' when I really, really need to take a break, or when our son lets out a big belly laugh -- he has the best laugh," said the Virginia Beach, Va. resident. Spurr told OffTheBus, "Obama proposes a Military Family Advisory Board, which I think is long overdue."

The number of Navy and Air Force vets re-deployed to fill gaps in Army units on a one-off basis -- with just a few weeks of combat training -- continues to grow. "The Navy is providing manpower because the Army doesn't have enough troop strength for our front lines," said Vivian Walker, a Navy veteran and military spouse who is using her GI Bill benefits to earn a Ph.D. in public administration and urban policy.

Walker confesses she forgot her wedding anniversary amid the chaos of managing work and family by herself. "A big paper was due, I was trying to find a Halloween costume for our four-year old, my mother was visiting...the list goes on, but I'm not complaining. The only time I get upset is when I feel I have to defend my patriotism if I vote for Obama. I live this war daily. My support for the troops is all-consuming."

Maria Arwitz's husband is a Navy dentist who was onboard the USS Comstock when it delivered a marine corps unit to Afghanistan in 2002. Three years later he was sent to Iceland for 11 months, something that "probably would not have happened if Navy Medicine wasn't stretched so thin," Arwitz told OffTheBus. "He left right after one of our 10-month-old twins underwent heart surgery. It taught me a lot about how strong a military mom has to be with no family around."

Arwitz likes that Obama believes all Americans are entitled to quality health care. "The conditions at Walter Reed Hospital really infuriate me. I feel connected to these troops when they return home -- I shop with their wives at the commissary, my kids play with their kids on the playground. You wouldn't believe what some families are going through," said the Beaufort, SC resident...

...For The Record, Mrs. McCain...

The non-partisan group Disabled American Veterans gives John McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans' issues. (It gives Barack Obama an 80 percent rating.)

The non-partisan group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gives McCain a "D" grade for his voting record on issues such as additional funding for combat body armor, and additional funding for post-traumatic stress disorder and other medical treatment. (Obama earned a B +.)


More here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/the-big-chill-cindy-mccai_b_134068.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:41 AM

"Your Faux News is lying to you about ACORN."


                     It's all over CNN and all the other news outlets as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:49 AM

How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama (Sort Of)

Imagine an election where one of the participants calls foul. Investigations are launched or at least called for. Prosecutors raise the specter of charges, the U.S. attorney and FBI get involved. No voter fraud is ever actually found. But by the time that conclusion is reached, the myth has been solidified both to soothe the loser's supporters and condemn the winner.

Sound familiar? Sound like the recent ACORN scandal?

Well, actually I'm talking about the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. That Nixon was cheated out of a win is the stuff of legend on the Right. The allegations say that Kennedy loyalists fixed the vote counts in Illinois and Texas--swinging 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College to Kennedy. In more hyperbolic versions there is alleged involvement by the mob, the Teamsters Union or legendary Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

The story goes on that Nixon, "for the good of the country," conceded honorably and exited the scene. No matter that Nixon was later chased out of the White House for cheating in an election. The myth endures.

This whole story--maybe to be replayed with Obama playing Kennedy and McCain playing Nixon--is a canard. It is a fable. A lie made up by the conservative movement to hold together their fraying coalition.

In 2008 the stakes are bigger than they've ever been before for conservatives and the canard is that much more important to them.

In the case of Obama the conservative movement is lining up a serious of story elements. They are:

    • Obama was a community organizer.
    • ACORN, a group that does community organizing, has committed voter fraud.
    • Obama is from Chicago.
    • You know what happens in elections in Chicago. Remember the 1960 election.

The story is half true and half lies. As we all know, Barack Obama is from Chicago and was a community organizer. Those are the only true parts of the conservative story. But the other two facts are myths: the 1960 election wasn't stolen (says the conclusion of recounts and investigations in 1960 and numerous academic studies since). And, ACORN has not committed voter fraud. Not one bit.

The facts about ACORN are worth getting out. ACORN is an organization that, among other things, registers low-income people to vote. One of the ways they do this is to hire door-to-door canvassers from the neighborhoods they are working in. This sort of work is tightly regulated. So, when one of the thousands of people they give jobs to doesn't do their work right and brings back bogus or phony voter registration cards, the law REQUIRES that ACORN turn the forms in to the voter registration office. The law, rightly, doesn't want anybody throwing out voter registration forms for any reason.

But ACORN goes a step farther. They have people assigned to do quality control on all the cards--calling people on the forms after they fill them out. When they find bad information on the cards they attach a cover sheet to the card but, as mentioned above, they turn in the cards as required by law. The effect is that a few bad canvassers or a poorly run office will mean that bad cards are submitted as part of the normal process. But ACORN has done everything possible to make sure voting officials know to check the forms.

The sad fact is that in at least one state--Nevada--the voting officials disregarded ACORN's cover sheets flagging the voter registration forms. That should have never happened. The resulting blowup was a scandal in search of a scandal.

The stunning con of this whole thing is the assumption that bad voter registration cards being submitted will lead to vote fraud. If somebody submits a card for Mickey Mouse it isn't like Mr. Mouse is going to show up to vote. There is no voter fraud if nobody votes.

But the big story here is what the Right is doing. Their attacks on ACORN open up the door for two things.

First, the ACORN myth allows the Republicans to do more purging of the voter rolls--the process of removing people from the voter rolls because of arbitrary anomalies in the voter registration databases. Richard L Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog and a distinguished law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles recently wrote, "Careless purging--driven by unsubstantiated fears about voter fraud--can lead to many eligible voters being incorrectly removed from the polls." Already in Ohio the Republican Party is pushing for more purging and they found a federal judge who agreed citing ACORN's activities.

Second, in the event that campaigning, purging and intimidating voters doesn't work, the Right is creating a myth like they did in 1960. They are creating the myth of a stolen election. Conservatives plan to claim that ACORN and Barack Obama stole the election. Their hope is to steal the legitimacy of what is looking like a massive repudiation of Bush, conservatives and the Republican Party. The Right plans to steal the election by trying to steal the legitimate defeat of them by progressive forces.

And why wouldn't they? The entire Republican coalition could be shattered with this election. White suburban voters who once voted Republican on tax issues are running away from Republicans on a host of issues--including taxes. Independent are looking more and more like Democratic voters. Barack Obama may even win a majority of male voters. All of them are joining with urban votes, voters of color, young people, working class union members and others to form a long-term governing majority for progressives--a progressive majority.

Conservatives are scared of a progressive majority. And they're going to lie, cheat and steal to prevent it from happening. But they can only be successful if we let them.

The best way to deflate the conservative fable is to win with an overwhelming landslide that guarantees there won't be a dispute of the results.

We also need to confront the Republican vote purging and suppression. Already big efforts by the Obama campaign, the DNC and independent groups are working on this. Progressives and Democrats are united in this effort.

But we also need to make sure the ACORN canard doesn't get to live in daylight. It is time to circle the wagons and make sure John McCain and the Right can't steal the election...even if we win.

For progressives, the ball is in our court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-matzzie/how-mccain-will-steal-the_b_133989.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:52 AM

The one issue that McCain was most involved with and should have been the moment that he stood tall and proud was the torture issue.

Instead he caved into Bush for personal promises that if he left torture alone he would be rewarded with not being destroyed like other Republicans who got out of line like C Todd-Whitman.

McCain ended up voting for Bush torture definitions and use.

John did not put country, the Geneva Convention or the troops first.
He went along to get along with the Bush Cheney administration.

In light of backing down on his most salient issue of torture, the maverick label is undeserved and a myth.

I am Don Hackman and I approve these facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 11:19 AM

The question is : Can McCain sufficiently distance himself from John McCain? He's trying real hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:55 PM

"The McCain campaign's recent angry tone and sharply personal attacks on Senator Barack Obama appear to have backfired and tarnished Senator John McCain more than their intended target, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found.

Related
Complete Poll Results (PDF)
Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
Election Guide | More Politics News
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (74) »
After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.

Over all, the poll found that if the election were held today, 53 percent of those determined to be probable voters said that they would vote for Mr. Obama and 39 percent said they would vote for Mr. McCain.

The findings come as the race enters its final three weeks, with the two candidates scheduled to hold their third and last debate on Wednesday night, and as separate polls in critical swing states that could decide the election giving Mr. Obama a growing edge. But wide gaps in polls have historically tended to narrow in the closing weeks of the race as the election nears.

Voters who said that their opinions of Mr. Obama had changed recently were twice as likely to say that they had gotten better as to say they had gotten worse. And voters who said that their views of Mr. McCain had changed were three times more likely to say that they had gotten worse than to say they had improved." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:56 PM

John McCain heads into the third and final presidential debate against Barack Obama tonight promising to "whip his you-know-what" and transform a race now pointing towards a resounding Democratic victory.

Given the flailing Republican campaign in recent days, however, he may have trouble distinguishing Mr Obama's "you-know-what" from his elbow or any other part of the anatomy. Last night a CBS/New York Times poll showed the Democrat surging to a 14-point lead, the biggest margin so far. The disarray in the McCain team was apparent even as they sought to relaunch policies designed to tackle the financial crisis before the televised debate.

Over the weekend campaign aides promised that he would unveil details of a new package for the economy on Monday. Then, on Sunday night, they said that he would not. By Monday evening it was back on again.

When he finally took to the stage in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, yesterday to announce a $52.5 billion (£30 billion) plan pitched towards voters on retirement incomes, much of its potential impact had been lost. He had no more luck with the $300 billion mortgage rescue proposal which, after being announced hurriedly in last week's debate, got panned by liberals and conservatives alike as inconsistent with his promised spending cuts. (TimesOnline, UK)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 10:09 AM

"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."

read the full article
here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 11:48 AM

Oooo look, evewbody!! Hanging out with people who support terrorists!

"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.

John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had "stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could."

"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 11:54 AM

The state of the McCain campaign is drawing fire from its own ostensible allies. At the head of the line of Republicans looking to be the first to flick dirt on McCain's grave is Bill Kristol, who says in today's New York Times, that if "the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed." Since that's coming from a guy who, through his own bad advice, has contributed mightily to the grave McCain is measuring, it makes sense that he be given the first shovel of dirt.

But didn't Kristol get the message? Today, the key line of John McCain's rebooted stump speech is directed at his rival, Barack Obama, and it goes a little something like, "We have him right where we want him." That was the plan, all along, you see! Be down double digits in the polls, possessed of the necessity of campaigning in West Virginia, and in need of tempering your supporters' passions because they have suddenly veered wildly in the direction of psychosis. I love it when a plan comes together, even if that plan is only indicative of the fact that McCain's moved to the "denial" stage of grief. Brace yourself, because anger and depression are still to come!

Amid this turmoil, McCain's attempts to relaunch his campaign have encountered a new obstacle: his fellow Republicans, who, like Kristol, are prepping themselves for an old-fashioned circular firing squad. Over the weekend, the New York Times noted that party leaders "were worried Mr. McCain was heading for defeat unless he brought stability to his presidential candidacy and settled on a clear message" for his campaign. And in today's edition of The Hill, a chorus of disapproval weighs in on McCain's muffed punt of the Paulson bailout package.

But leading that particular pack of wolves is Kristol, who says that the "McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic."

Of course, a smart observer might have suggested that the incompetence-slash-incoherence was extant at the moment McCain selected Sarah Palin (inexperienced, embroiled in abuse-of-power scandal, earmark lover) as his running mate, and the toxicity was apparent after a week of all-Ayers-all-the-time campaigning. And we'd remind you that both the Palin selection and the Ayers-bashing had few supporters as frenzied as Kristol. But hey! If the Times was interested in good sense or accountability or even intellectual consistency from their columnists, they wouldn't have hired Kristol in the first place.

Naturally, McCain's responded through Nancy Pfotenhauer, who's accused Kristol of "buying into the Obama campaign's party line." These sentiments were similarly voiced by the ubiquitous Tucker Bounds later in the day:

So what's the new party line from John McCain? In the first place, McCain is now saying, "What America needs in this hour is a fighter." Doesn't that mess up Sarah Palin's constant contention that McCain being "the only man in the race who has ever really fought for you" was something that she had to say because McCain was too modest to admit it? More to the point, doesn't this mess up the Sarah Palin Stump Speech Drinking Game? Ever since she dropped the "I sold it on eBay" line I've been practically teetotaling!

But the crux of McCain's case seems to be this line:

"I come from a long line of McCains who believed that to love America is to fight for her."

So there you have it! Vote for McCain! He's the McCainiest!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/lashing-out-mccain-flack_n_134228.html

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:23 PM

"The McCain campaign just keeps looking more and more silly for trying to push this out as some kind of blemish on Obama. He is alienating the THINKING people in the Republican party by continuing this stupid Ayers connection slander. Every day, there are more and more Republicans announcing their dissatisfaction with the slimy tactics McCain has turned to."

Where were these "thinking" Republicans when Karl Rove was using the very same slimy tactics to influence the last two Presdiential elections in favor of GW Bush? And, specifically, in the 2000 primaries, where McCain was the victim of some particularly nasty Rove/Cheney/Bush slander?

Looks to me like these rats are abandoning a sinking ship not because of any distaste for McCain's newly-adopted mainstream-GOP dirty-tricks tactics, but purely and simply because he's losing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:51 PM

The newest stance for the Macain CampLain (word play) is that the government should be ruled by a party balance. The Republicans are saying the if the Congress & Senate are dominated by what' they expect to be Democrates (there on fault mind you) then the Prez should be Repub.
They must think that the whole of the voting public is made up of idiots.

"You can fool some of the people,,,,,," how did Bush blow it? Let me see if I can count the ways. An all Democratic rule would suit me & many others just fine, including the top heavy repub Supreme Court! This regime needs toppling!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 10:48 PM

Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain sought to resolve an old problem - the lack of cellphone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, Ariz., nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.

Over the past year, she offered land for a permanent cell tower, and Verizon Wireless embarked on an expensive public process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits.

Verizon ultimately abandoned its effort to install a permanent tower in August. Company spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said the project would be "an inappropriate way" to build its network. "It doesn't make business sense for us to do that," he added.

Instead, Verizon delivered a portable tower known as a "cell site on wheels" - free of charge - to the McCain property in June, after the Secret Service began inquiring about improving coverage in the area. Such devices are used for providing temporary capacity where coverage is lacking or has been knocked out, in circumstances ranging from the Super Bowl to hurricanes.


GRAPHIC: After a request from Cindy McCain, Verizon Wireless proposed installing a cell tower close to the couple's home near Sedona, Ariz.
In July, AT&T followed suit, wheeling in a portable tower for free to match Verizon's offer. "This is an unusual situation," AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones said. "You can't have a presidential nominee in an area where there is not cell coverage."

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staff member Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan G. Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain's presidential effort, and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain's political career, giving his campaigns more than $155,000.

...

(WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 11:26 PM

Remember how much Bill Clinton aged in office? W as well. McCain looks as if the campaign has aged him that much. After four years in office, he would look like the grandpa in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 12:38 PM

McCain was given a free pass when he claimed that he put a stop to torure policy. He actually voted for a redefinition torure package that hasnt changed a thing.

At this point to call him on this lie would be piling on. I feel sorry for him in a way. With the few years he has left it would be cruel to strip him of the few delusions he needs to feel honorable about the awful compromises he has made.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 07:07 PM

The Five Most Clearly Insane People Endorsing John McCain.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 04:40 PM

McCain is in an alternate reality. His economic program is silly. A spending freeze would
make the stock market drop like an anchor and keep it stuck at the bottom.

He wants to bail out investors who put us in the crisis to begin with. No tax on capital gains?
If anyone has them these days, what use is it to exempt them from taxes? Investors don't have jobs for workers.

His machinations about Iraq are story-book pipe dreams. He wants to create "democracy" there? We better do it here first.

John McCain wants to tax health care benefits after giving individuals five grand?

John McCain says he is "not Bush" and Nixon said he was not a crook.

Don't think of an elephant!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Cluin
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 09:21 PM

Anyone else cynical enough to think McCain's blowing-off the Letterman Show was a calculated ploy?

Surely the media-savvy Republican election machine ought to have known Letterman would find out he was lied to and McCain wasn't rushing back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis and instead gave an interview to Katie Couric? And that D.L. would harp on it?

All to grab some headlines during a flagging campaign and pump up the audience for the show when he DID appear and graciously admit that he "screwed up"?

Didn't hurt the Late Show's ratings that night either, did it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 10:28 AM

The NYT discusses why McCain failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 09:03 AM

John McCain palling around with ACORN, whom he later accuses of "destroying the fabric of democracy" in one of the most mentally umoored metaphors of the current campaign.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 09:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 09:12 PM

And if articles are really reflective of popular opinion because they are posted here, I will offer this one as an example off what Obama supporters are really like....


Of course we know that opinions and single evemts do noit reflect the entire picture, unless supported by the NYT.





McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber; Update

posted at 4:50 pm on October 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey


A 20-year-old woman got robbed at an ATM in a Pittsburgh suburb, and normally that would not make national news. However, her robber wanted to make a political statement as well. After seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car, he beat the woman and scratched a "B" into her face:


"A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.
Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said."


This is a horrible story, and if it happened as alleged, I hope the man gets life in prison for both the armed robbery and the maiming. Our prayers go to the woman, who refused medical treatment at the scene, as well as our hopes for a quick and complete recovery.
However, despite the comments popping up in other threads, I don't think this says anything terribly significant about the election or either candidate. Criminals aren't known for their kindness, temperament, or intellect, and this particular criminal sounds like he's a couple of bricks short of a load even for that crowd. The initial crime had nothing to do with politics at all, so it's not an example of partisan thuggery as one would expect some to paint it.
I'm sure that the two campaigns will be sure to reach out to the woman. Someone will undoubtedly press the Obama campaign for a reaction, and will get the obligatory and emphatic denunciation that everyone would expect. We have many more important issues to debate, and many more cogent reasons to oppose Barack Obama than the offhand cruelty of one criminal in Pittsburgh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 11:14 PM

Bruce:

In another thread, someone said the police are doubting her story. The picture that accompanied clearly shows a woman who has a black eye and markings on her face. Do you have any further data on it? It is a gruesome tale, if true.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM

BB--

Gruesome. And, if true, I suspect you would not find one Obama supporter on Mudcat or elsewhere who would endorse this behavior. All decent people would condemn it.

Now, are you also willing to condemn Palin's stirring up the crowds to "Kill him" and "Terrorist"--and doing nothing to denounce such reponses in her listeners?

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 12:12 AM

"responses"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 12:28 AM

It's so easy to become so upset that we can't see straight. Just for purposes of lightening up a bit try this. It's called Let 'Em Eat Moose

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 12:39 AM

Well done, Stephen!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 01:46 AM

Ron,

"Now, are you also willing to condemn Palin's stirring up the crowds to "Kill him" and "Terrorist"--and doing nothing to denounce such reponses in her listeners?

Yes or no? "

Yes,
IF she was stirring up crowds to ""Kill him" and "Terrorist"--and doing nothing to denounce such reponses in her listeners?" she was wrong to do so- but if Obama is stirring up crowds to blame McCain for the actions of Bush that McCain did not support THAT is just as wrong.


Has Obama made any statements denouncing those of his supporters that are threatening violence if Obama doers not win? There are as many of those as there were people saying """Kill him" and "Terrorist""




Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 01:50 AM

Thanks, kat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 02:00 AM

"one Obama supporter on Mudcat"

I agree with this part

" or elsewhere who would endorse this behavior."

This is not proven- there are probably as many supporters of Obama that might do so as there are McCain supporters calling for Obama's death.


" All decent people would condemn it."

Agreed- but you presume that ALL Democrats are decent and Republicans are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 03:52 AM

It looks more like the person claiming she was mutilated by an Obama supporter is more indicative of what McCain supporters are like than what Obama supporters are like. As soon as I saw her story on a video at MSNBC, she set off my Susan Smith lie detectors, and I had a look around. Turns out the police are very suspicious of her story...

http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/23/politically-motivated-mutilation-real-or-hoax/

She wasn't even willing to go to the hospital, that's how traumatized she was. If the police suspicions are correct (and I think they are), this is a person who is willing to start a race war just to either A. get her candidate elected, or B. to get her fifteen minutes of fame. Either way, as with Susan Smith, doing something reprehensible and then blaming in on Black people is about as reprehensible as it is possible to get. And it is entirely in keeping with the whole ethic of the McCain campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 03:57 AM

Correction: she refused medical assistance on the scene. Hmmm... I wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 08:58 AM

"Correction: she refused medical assistance on the scene. Hmmm... I wonder why."


                   She's tough, like McCain supporters always are!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 09:22 AM

Well, the police are going to administer a polygraph test. They are saying there's too many things about her story that don't add up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 09:25 AM

The backwards B was probably their first clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 06:05 PM

Campaign Volunteer Faces Charges In Attack Hoax

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― A campaign worker who claimed she was the victim of a politically-motivated attack in which she was beaten, kicked and cut, now admits that she made the whole story up.

According to Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard, Ashley Todd, 20, told investigators today that she "was not robbed and there was no 6'4" black male attacker."

Todd initially told police that she was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield Wednesday night and that the suspect began beating her after seeing a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.

Todd claimed that the mugger even cut a backwards letter "B" in her check.

But today investigators say Todd confessed that the attack never happened.

At a news conference this afternoon, officials said they believe that Todd's injuries were self-inflicted.

Police investigating the report said Todd's story began to unravel early on and they administered a polygraph test.

Investigators asked Todd to return to the police station today for more questioning and to help them release a composite sketch of the suspect.

When she did, police say she admitted that she made the whole thing up and that it snowballed out of control.

Todd told investigators today that she "just wanted to tell the truth" – adding that she was neither robbed, nor attacked.

"She indicated that she has prior mental problems and that she does not remember how the backward letter B got on her face," Richard told reporters today.

Todd told police that while she did not remember how the backward "B" got on her face, she may have done it herself since she was the only one in the car.

According to police, Todd said she thought of Barack Obama when she saw the "B" in her rearview mirror.

Officials say they do not believe any other people were involved; and Todd's friends believed the story about the attack – encouraging her to call police.

Todd is now facing charge for filing a false police report.

As of late this afternoon, Todd was still in custody under observation.

http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html


Are we going to see apologies from all of the McCain supporters who tried to use this story as a way to smear Obama supporters, and Obama himself? (And there are plenty who tried to do this.) I rather doubt it because there seems to be a critical shortage of people with any kind of personal integrity who are supporting McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 06:16 PM

"Are we going to see apologies from all of the McCain supporters "

1. Using Amos's statement, I said that the article said... THAT is true. The article did say it.

2. I am still waiting for the apoloogies abotu the proven false claims that Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida: OI have shown that EVEN IF THE RECOUNT had been done as Gore requested, GORE would have LOST.


Still waiting....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 08:17 PM

Bush did steal the election. Or the Republicans did. The massive voter disenfranchisement is what's responsible for the Republican victory in that election. Millions of valid voters were illegally purged from the voter rolls in more than one state in 2000, and again in 2004. And they're doing it again in 2008. The Republicans have a lot to apologize for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM

BB--

OK, you're on. Let's have specifics on Obama supporters threatening violence if he does not win. And violence targeted toward specific individuals--as the "Kill him" was.
And that one is documented.

With exact sources and dates, please.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 10:56 PM

Flip flopping means little to me and in fact can show a deliberate thoughtfullness and ability to change ones mind when new evidence comes to bear.

But McCain has changed his vote or stand on the following issues;
torture - gave in to Bush torture bill.
abortion
immigration - for it then against his own bill.
social security
Bush permanent rich tax cuts
gay marriage
campaign finance
off shore drilling
surge troops in Afghanistan
and finally he first voted against a holiday to honor MLK

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 11:11 PM

McCain's largest problem was he was in the public spotlight for a long, long period of time. What he has going for him is, he changed his mind on various issues over a long period of time, and the circumstances changed dramatically.

                     Obama, on the other hand, changes his mind every time the wind changes direction, or he sees a political advantage for himself personally. He doesn't change his mind to the benefit of his constituents.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 11:27 PM

Well, I liked what McCain was before he started pandering to the right wing of the Republican party in his efforts to get elected. Had he remained as he used to pretend to be, he might still have my support. But he never really was what he once pretended to be, so he really never did flip flop on anything. He's always been a political opportunist and he always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 11:33 PM

I just saw a map of the world that supported either McCain or Obama.
It was all blue for Obama except for Namibia, Cuba and Iraq which were Red for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 11:38 PM

This is getting just slightly tiresome: Rig--let's have just one iota of evidence to back up that last smear.

Even if you have to close down Smears R Us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 08:45 AM

1. Campaign financing!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 09:54 AM

Rig--


That pales beside McCain (aka the Weathervane) and his flip-flops

1) immigration--now he says he'd vote against the bill he co-sponsored. Pandering to know-nothings like your good self?   Perish the thought.

2) just recently the "bail-out".   He was all over the map--trying desperately to figure out which way the wind was blowing.

3) tax cuts--against the 2003 tax cuts. Now tax cuts are the cat's meow.

4) Like the other candidates, praising GWB to the skies in the Republican debates. Now slashing GWB's record to shreds--since he's figured out that's necessary to get independent votes.



Etc.


And since we're on the subject, let's examine your own views.

1)   You were allegedly for Hillary. Yet though Obama's views and Hillary's dovetail almost completely, you are now still attacking Obama at every turn. Even though Hillary herself points this out constantly , you pay no attention.

Conclusion: you were never a real Hillary voter. In the general election you would never have voted for her-since she was in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

You were just favoring her since she was the main opposition to Obama.

2)   You claim to be against organized religion. Yet you defend the only fundamentalist--Palin. And are stupidly oblivious to the threat McCain appointees will be to the church/state divide you supposedly favor.


Hence my affectionate term for you--Mr. Hypocrite


If I had to guess, I'd say that actually the reason you attack Obama--and by doing so, support McCain, since the only way to keep him out is to vote for Obama--is that you are stuffed full of prejudice.

Especially your hate and fear of Mexican immigrants dominates your thinking. Now that McCain, as I note, no longer favors a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, that makes him fine with you. You jettison any supposed other beliefs--like separation of church and state.

It's also interesting that the only black man you speak highly of is safely dead. Any live black public figure is a threat to you, and will not get your support.

And you conveniently ignore the fact that Obama himself has said his own daughters should not benefit from affirmative action programs--these programs should be at least partially economics-based, not just race-based.

The above is of course just a theory. You are welcome to try to rebut it--but your postings support it down the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 10:01 AM

One amendment: McCain, of course still favors a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--but now only after the border is "secured"--a neverland conceit which pushes their citizenship well into the next century--if then.

Certainly not in our lifetimes.

And you know that--and are fine with it. In fact it sets your "mind" at rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 10:22 AM

"You were allegedly for Hillary. Yet though Obama's views and Hillary's dovetail almost completely, you are now still attacking Obama at every turn."


             Obama's state views are similar to Hillary's, but he's proven he can't be trusted, so what he says doesn't mean anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 10:32 AM

Rig--

He has proven no such thing. Except to Mr. Nowhere Man AKA Mr. Hypocrite (your good self)

And I am still awaiting any possible refutation of my theory as to the reason for your attitude.

Silence consents.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:02 PM

Ron - Silence does not consent. It's the only way to deal with your irrational badgering.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:39 PM

Ron-

Rig just wants attention. I suggest that we stop feeding him.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 02:11 PM

Here's an odd photo of McCain trying to catch up with Obama (taken from Snopes Website): click here for website

Whatever is going on in that man's mind?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 03:12 PM

Hasn't that one been used in the USA press? I know if it had happened in a British election it would have been all over the place here. As it is most papers here did print this one, mostly without comment. Well, it doesn't really need comment...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 05:30 PM

John McCain tends to make funny faces a lot, especially that tongue sticking out one, but REALLY, folks... it's his political policies that should be criticized, not his expressions! Anyone can be caught in a photo making a less than flattering expression. I'm tired of the petty stuff being dredged up about both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:38 AM

Mr. Hypocrite (AKA the CEO of Smears R Us)--"Rig"

Poor boy (you wouldn't understand Pobrecito--it's Spanish and therefore makes you blow your top--since, as I said, the main thing driving you is your hate and fear of Mexican immigrants.)   That's why you never were a real Hillary voter---since, as I said, she is in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

You would never have voted for her in the general election against any Republican--for the reason I cited.

Nor do you care about the war in Iraq---or indeed anything but your hate and fear of Mexicans--and blacks, it appears.



Your hypocrisy is on brilliant display particularly when you defend Palin.

Gee, I remember you whining pathetically for years about the "evils" of organized religion. But though Palin does believe in the "end times"---and you might want to consider :Palin will be putting you in the "left behind"--your hypocrisy is such that you ignore this--and the fact that, as I said, McCain- appointed judges will be industriously tearing down the alleged wall between church and state.

All your piteous moaning about religion was just so much hot air, it's plain to see.


It has no chance against the driving force in your mind--your strong prejudice against all Mexican immigrants---which is why you are fine with McCain now that he has pushed a path to citizenship for illegals far into the next century--if then.

It actually sounds like you are in fact the perfect racist--since black people seem to bother you too--especially if they're "uppity" enough to actually have some power--and be public figures. (Unless they're dead--like MLK).

As I said, not only does silence consent, it's obvious my theory about your motivation is totally true---you can't contradict it, since you know it is.

And no matter how much people try to reason with you, you ignore anything but your own prejudices.

And your postings--for years--back it up completely.

I'd be glad to cite chapter and verse from your collected works if you care to dispute this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:10 PM

...religion was just so much hot air,..


                Well, Ron, at least we can agree on that!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:24 PM

Obama has not changed his position on campaign financing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 07:54 PM

"John McCain insisted Sunday that he is making a comeback and will defeat Democrat Barack Obama, discounting the Illinois senator's lead in most national and key state polls.
As McCain fought to hold Republican-leaning states, Obama was focused on what should be his opponent's turf, spending the remaining nine days of the campaign mostly in states that President George W. Bush won four years ago.

Obama concluded a swing through the West with two rallies in Colorado, one of three states in the region _ including Nevada and New Mexico _ that are hotly contested even though McCain should have a natural advantage. He has represented neighboring Arizona in the Senate for nearly a quarter century.

Obama drew a crowd of more than 100,000 in Denver, the Colorado state capital.

"Goodness gracious," Obama said as he took the stage and peered at the human mass in Civic Center Park. People were packed in all the way up the steps of the Capitol, off in the distance.

Obama seized on McCain's statement earlier Sunday that he and Bush _ as fellow Republicans _ shared some aspects of economic philosophy.

"For eight years, we've seen the Bush-McCain philosophy put our country on the wrong track," Obama said, "and we cannot have another four years that look just like the last eight. It's time for change in Washington, and that's why I'm running for President of the United States."

He added, "We know what the Bush-McCain philosophy looks like. It's a philosophy that says we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that it trickles down."..." (Taiwan News)

I don't think postulating a comeback is enough to make it happen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:47 PM

Mr. Hypocrite:


Gee, I don't know how you could have misquoted me.   The quote, to refresh your memory, was: "All your piteous moaning about religion was just so much hot air".

And it's interesting you cannot even start to rebut my assertion that your driving force is hate and fear of Mexican immigrants and blacks who are public figures.

Since it's well established by years of your posts.

And that's the only reason why you defend Palin (and McCain).

But it's enough to make you turn your back on your supposed principles--like a concern for separation of church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:30 PM

I just have to say that while I don't agree with the person being routinely attacked by the above Obama supporter, the behavior of the one doing the attacking makes Obama look bad. That particular Obama supporer is not helping Obama by routinely attacking people and calling them names. In fact, that person just makes Obama look bad when they do that, in the same way that the McCain supporters who call people names make McCain look bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:29 PM

"...like a concern for separation of church and state...."


             There are concerns, and there are CONCERNS. In the case of Obam, who wallowed around on his knees for twenty years in front of Reverend Wright, and then announced that he intended to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open if elected, the concern becomes much, much greater.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 12:30 AM

Rig:

There is no evidence Obama wallowed anywhere. Your slurs and slanders are getting hate-filled beyond all reason, and you need to check your meds, buddy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:21 AM

Obama himself said he went to Wright's church for twenty years. Wallowing around on knees is what people do there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 09:01 AM

McCain Communications Director Gave Reporters Incendiary Version Of "Carved B" Story Before Facts Were Known
By Greg Sargent - October 24, 2008, 5:12PM

John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."

Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. According to Verrilli, the spokesperson also told KDKA that Sarah Palin had called the victim of the alleged attack, who has since admitted the story was a hoax.

The KDKA reporter had called McCain's campaign office for details after seeing the story -- sans details -- teased on Drudge.

The McCain spokesperson's claims -- which came in the midst of extraordinary and heated conversations late yesterday between the McCain campaign, local TV stations, and the Obama camp, as the early version of the story rocketed around the political world -- is significant because it reveals a McCain official pushing a version of the story that was far more explosive than the available or confirmed facts permitted at the time.

The claims to KDKA from the McCain campaign were included in an early story that ran late yesterday on KDKA's Web site. The paragraphs containing these assertions were quickly removed from the story after the Obama campaign privately complained that KDKA was letting the McCain campaign spin a racially-charged version of the story before the facts had been established, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.

The story with the removed grafs is still right here. We preserved the three missing grafs from yesterday:


A source familiar with what happened yesterday confirmed that the unnamed spokesperson was communications director Peter Feldman. Feldman was also quoted yesterday making virtually identical assertions on the Web site of another local TV station, WPXI. But those quotes, which we also preserved here, are also no longer available on WPXI's site, for reasons that are unclear.

From "Talking POints Memo.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 07:21 AM

"John McCain insisted Sunday that he is making a comeback and will defeat Democrat Barack Obama,..."



                        Thank gawd!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 08:20 AM

Well, Rigs, looks to be an uphill battle as now McCain is fighting Bush, Obama and his own VP selection... That is probably too many fronts...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 06:02 AM

"...we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more"

"Here's what I really believe - when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

--John McCain

John McCain is a socialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 07:49 AM

That's not the story that McCain wants people to hear now, Carol... But then again McCain has shown that he is willing to say anything that pops into his mind(s)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:49 PM

Washington Post:

What We've Learned About McCain

By David S. Broder
Thursday, October 30, 2008; Page A23

As we near the end of another presidential campaign, it is useful to ask ourselves what we have learned about the candidates that we did not know before. When you reflect back on all the rallies, the speeches, the ads and the debates, what insights have you gained about their goals, their methods, their characters? I will turn to Barack Obama next, but today's subject is John McCain.

We knew a great deal about him from the past. We knew that he was a product of the military elite, the son and grandson of admirals, imbued with the patriotic impulses and the sense of duty to country that is his family tradition. We also knew that he had the capacity and willpower to endure and resist the terrible abuse he suffered in a North Vietnamese prison camp.

We knew that he had the backbone to set his own course -- a rebel defying authority -- and that he carried that trait into politics, often challenging the leaders of his party and the wishes of his fellow Republicans. We also knew that he had a temper, redeemed by a self-mocking sense of humor, and we knew that he had a capacity for building genuine friendships across party lines.

We suspected, and soon had confirmed, that he had limited interest in, and capacity for, the organization and management of large enterprises. His first effort at building a structure for the 2008 presidential race collapsed in near-bankruptcy, costing him the service of many longtime aides. From beginning to end, the campaign that followed has been plagued by internal feuds and McCain's inability to resolve them.

The shortcoming was intellectual as well as bureaucratic. Like Jimmy Carter, the only Naval Academy graduate to reach the Oval Office, McCain had an engineer's approach to policymaking. He had no large principles that he could apply to specific problems; each fresh question set off a search for a "practical" solution. He instinctively looked back to Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive era, with its high-mindedness and disdain for the politics of doling out favors to interest groups. But those instincts coexisted uneasily with his adherence to traditional, Reagan-era conservatism -- a muscular foreign policy, a penchant for tax-cutting and a fondness for business.

McCain was handed a terrible political environment by the outgoing Bush administration -- a legacy of war, debt and scandal that would have defeated any of the other aspirants for the nomination. But because McCain could not create a coherent philosophy or vision of his own, he allowed Obama and the Democrats to convince voters of a falsehood: that electing McCain would in effect reward Bush with a third term.

A similar ambivalence clouded his relationship with the Republican Party. Neither rebel nor defender of the party's doctrines, he won its nomination because of smart tactics and lucky circumstances in three primaries -- New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida -- without ever establishing himself as its legitimate spokesman.

His vice presidential choice, his best opportunity to put his stamp on the future, was made, typically, more on instinct than careful appraisal. McCain saw Sarah Palin as reinforcing his own reformist credentials. The convention embraced her, not as a reformer but as the embodiment of beliefs precious to the religious right. And the mass of voters questioned her credentials for national leadership.

The campaign has been costly in terms of McCain's reputation. He has been condemned for small-minded partisanship, not praised for his generous and important suggestion that the major-party candidates stump the country together, conducting weekly joint town hall meetings -- an innovation Obama turned down.

The frustration for McCain and his closest associates is their belief that he is ready to practice the kind of post-partisan politics the country wants -- and which they believe Obama only talks about.

Should McCain win the election, it will demonstrate even more vividly than the earlier episodes in his life the survival instincts and capacity for overcoming the odds of this remarkably engaging man. And the country will have to hope this campaign has honed his leadership skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 08:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 08:26 PM

Maver......ick?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 09:18 PM

Yeah... this will win them over...

(Or make them vote Democrat for the rest of their lives... )