BS: Popular views on McCain

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:58 AM

Truck

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: 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: 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 - 11:08 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 - 08:23 AM

Well, hopefully things will change!

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: 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 - 08:06 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 02:13 PM

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-62889

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: 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 - 09:11 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:33 PM

How many houses do you have, McSame?!

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