McCain/Lieberman '08? Mac doesn't dare

(If he has any true aspirations of becoming president, at least.)

I've been reading lots and lots of stories and speculation that McSame is about to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Don't believe it.

McCain has already taken great pains to court the conservative vote, and among the far right he is still viewed with a fair amount of skepticism. If he were to pick Lieberman, he would be doing nothing to further blunt that skepticism.

However, it's official - turncoat Joe will now speak at the Republican National Convention, official becoming this year's Zell Miller. What a difference eight years makes. I guess in a way I'm rooting for McCain to select Lieberman, because I could exorcise my demons of having voted for Lieberman in 2000 by voting against him now. (And it would also serve to steel my resolve to volunteer for the Obama campaign and to work that much harder in seeing McCain get defeated.)

Well, we won't have to wait much longer to see if we are all going to be treated to the John and Joe Warmonger Show this fall.

Our National Embarrassment outdoes himself

I wonder where all of the sheeple are now who smashed Dixie Chicks CDs and protested the band's comments back at the beginning of the Iraq War. Because what President Bush said yesterday before the Knesset, the Israeli Legislature, pales in comparison to what the band said in England in March 2003. (Predictably, they will be mimes this time around.)

Bush is in Israel to observe the country's 60th anniversary, so of course he didn't miss a valuable opportunity to make a complete fool of himself. To wit, speaking at the Knesset yesterday, Bush had this to say:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

That has to be one of the most disgraceful comments I have ever heard an American president say in a foreign land. Ever. Using an overseas trip to try to score political points back home during an ally's historical moment is outrageous, even for Bush.

The unfortunate part about Bush's comments is that our disgrace of a president has about eight months left in his presidency to not only embarrass himself, but America, an by extension to do great harm to our foreign policy, which is already in tatters after having suffered from over seven years of dogged neocon ideology.

I never thought even Bush could or would go this low, but it's a clear indication that Bush will do or say virtually anything to ensure that the Democrats aren't successful this November in widening their margins in Congress and recapturing the White House. And if this is any indication, the Democrats had best be prepared to pull out the stops themselves. But, I can only hope that they don't stoop this low.

Not surprising were the responses to Bush's disgraceful comments...

From Senator Barack Obama:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel."

"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

When given an opportunity to reject Bush's comments, Senator John McSame predictably provided Bush with an echo chamber:

"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain," Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home."

Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: "I don't know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis."

An asinine comment from a man who will do or say just about anything if it will get him elected. What's more, McCain seems to be peeking into the play book of the 9-11 Profiteer himself, Rudy Giuliani. Here's one of Rudy's ads from his ill-fated presidential run:

And it looks like McSame is picking up right where 9iu1ian1 left off - parroting the GOP talking point, which is total b.s., that the Iranians let the hostages go one hour after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. Are you kidding me? The only thing more absurd than this line of reasoning being spewed forth, first by America's Profiteer, and now McSame, is the number of people who will believe it.

I do get tired to writing the same thing over and over, but it was President Carter who feverishly worked to free the 52 American hostages in Iran, but the Iranians didn't want to free them until he left office, in a blatantly transparent attempt to embarrass Carter. And yes, I'm old enough to remember it. An interesting footnote to that entire chain of events is how President Reagan, in a magnanimous gesture, let Carter ride Air Force One to bring those hostages back to the United States. I'm guessing part of that reason is because he knew how hard Carter worked to free them.

Anyway, like the parrot he is, of course McSame picks up that Rudy talking point and now he's running with it. And it needs to be called out for the propaganda that it is.

Bush's and McCain's comments underscore a trend that has been taking hold in the GOP for years - that any meaningful discussion cannot take place about the War on Terrorism by a Republican without the obligatory World War II reference, or the words Nazi, appeasement, Neville Chamberlain, etc. So, of course McCain had to throw in a Chamberlain reference, no doubt to appease his GOP base support, which he is still having trouble shoring up.

Again, students of history know that it was Republicans who were initially opposed to our involvement in the war (until Pearl Harbor), and it was Democrats who brought us into the war and ultimately helped win it (and who also exposed corporate corruption and war profiteering by Republican-friendly businesses during the war, just like today). Therein lies the irony to all of the GOP World War II references.

I don't always agree with DNC Chairman Howard Dean, but his statement about Bush's comments is one of the most succinct, appropriate things I've heard come from him in years:

"On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America's greatest allies. Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible."

Howard shouldn't be holding his breath, but he's right - Bush comments ARE a disgrace to our country, and are perhaps an unprecedented political attack from foreign soil. Yet another way that the Bush Presidency is breaking new ground in a very unfortunate way.

Of course, turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman wasted no time defending Bush's comments:

"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and that holds that--if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers--they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America's friends and America's enemies, and not confuse the two."

Of course, now that it looks like Obama is going to be the Democrats' nominee to take on McCain, the attacks are already starting. And that's okay, because quite frankly, it's only going to illustrate just how hapless and desperate Republicans are to hold onto power - power that's circling the bowl, headed for the sewer this November.

W's foreign policy school is in session!

How does the saying go? Once is an accident. Two is a trend. Three is a problem. And that's exactly how many times the supposed foreign policy "expert" running for president got it wrong during the last few days in Iraq. From HuffPo:

For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday.

This time, in a statement from his campaign honoring the fifth year anniversary of the war, McCain wrote:

"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al-Qaeda and Shia extremists — with support from external powers such as Iran — are on the run but not defeated."

On Tuesday, the senator, appearing in Israel, made a nearly identical assertion that Al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Iran.

Absolutely beyond the pale. If McCain's strong suit is supposedly foreign policy, I don't even want to know what his weak points are.

Many in the media are treating this as an inconsequential accident, but I'm not one of them. Once, maybe. But this guy is running for president - before he opens his big yap, he ought to make sure he knows what he's talking about. Otherwise, he runs the risk of carrying on Bush's legacy (if he's elected) of not knowing his arse from a hole in the ground, unless someone from his staff can put words in his mouth. (In this case, it was Joe "Zell Miller" Lieberman, who's clearly bucking to be Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense in a (heaven forbid) McCain administration.

Seriously though, this was no accident; this is a "slip" right out of the Dick & Bush play book - keep saying it over and over, and sooner or later people will equate Iran with Al-Qaeda, which is precisely what Bush and Co. did during the run-up to the War in Iraq; keep insinuating that Iran and Al-Qaeda are connected, but if directly asked, deny you're making the connection. Then, have people like Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Lielly do the dirty work for you. Sooner or later, at worst, the public is confused: "Is Al-Qaeda in Iran? I don't know - I thought I heard something about it on the news..."

Blue Texan at Firedoglake put it best: Will Joe Lieberman be at McCain's side at 3 a.m. when the call comes?

McCain's Iraq campaign commercial funded by taxpayers

Judas John McCain is in Iraq shooting a campaign commercial strolling in the "safe" Baghdad Market, flanked by 50 soldiers on a campaign stop funded by American taxpayers. Lovely. I find it pretty ironic that the Senator who rails against "pork barrel spending" doesn't mind wasting tens of thousands of our weakening dollar to gallivant around Baghdad to vilify his political opponents and critics.

Kudos to CNN's John King for regurgitating the McCain campaign's talking points about how Democrats are waving the white flag:

King:”...John McCain says he's here as a member of the Senate, but it is a defining issue in the campaign. It is John McCain who says either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would wave what he calls the "white flag of surrender" by rushing to get troops out of Iraq at a time when John McCain, and he will make the case here, says the surge policy is working and that while he would like to get the troops home, if they need to stay, Senator McCain says as a Senator or as the next president he would make the tough decision to keep them here. This is John King, reporting from Fox News." (Okay, just kidding about that last part, but judging from this quotation, his working for Fox doesn't seem so crazy.)

I'm so tired of hearing about how the surge is working, by the way. The reason the surge is working is because we are paying off our enemies to not shoot and bomb us. Too bad it took us so long to figure that out, while hundreds of thousands of people were killed, including thousands of Americans, and hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars went up in smoke toward promoting democracy in the Middle East.

I'm sure, God willing if I live that long, that in the coming decades, as my taxes are skyrocketing to pay off our trillions in debt (exacerbated by this war) and as the services our government will be shrinking quicker than the current value of our dollar.

It's pretty outrageous that McCain has the hyper-annoying Sen. Lindsay Graham in tow, as well as fellow judas Zell Miller Joe Lieberman, both members and rabid supporters of his presidential campaign. It's sleazy at best, and completely and totally unethical at worst. I wonder if Graham got a good deal on rugs this time (wait for Graham at the end of the short vid) - what a cheap bastard. How much does a U.S. Senator make these days? Something like $170,000 or so?

And for those who think it's perfectly acceptable for McCain to go to Iraq because he's on the Senate Armed Services Committee I'd say this - you have a point, up to a point.

On the way home, McCain is stopping over in London for a fund raiser. So, will his flight from London back to the US be paid for by the taxpayers, or his campaign donors? It's a fair question.

Actually, the most interesting thing about his trip will be his boilerplate justifications as to how we can win in Iraq. He's going to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a US stooge who has the credibility of Jack Abramoff, and he'll also meet with Gen. David Petraeus, but no one had better question the General's conduct, or you'll be subjected to a McCain rant like the one below...

So, let me get this straight - anyone who questions an officer's motives should be kicked out of the country? Hmm, I wonder where McCain was in 2004 when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were accusing John Kerry of everything but fighting alongside the Viet Cong? Swallowing his tongue, that's where.

When I look at the above footage, I wonder whether McCain really understands what America is all about. If you don't know what I mean by that, check out the quote at the very top of this blog by Abbie Hoffman, because I can't think of a better way to put it than that.

Well, at least McCain didn't wear a clown suit while landing on an aircraft carrier.

h/t Crooks & Liars for top video and King's transcript

Latest This Modern World

[Click for larger image]

Here's done better, but he's spot on about Zell Lieberman, though. It's now plain to see, and was pretty easy to predict after Lieberman's victory last November - he's dedicated his term in the Senate to making the Democrats pay for having opposed him in last spring's Democratic Primary against Ned Lamont.

I'm very much looking forward to next year, when hopefully the Democrats can gain a wider margin in the Senate, thereby rendering Lieberman toothless. But, the way things are going, that's an uphill climb, too; Harry Reid couldn't lead a Boy Scout Troop. He's the biggest disgrace of a Senate Majority Leader in my lifetime.

Ron Paul gives Rudy a reading list; Foreign Policy for Dummies should top it

While I'm in an anti-Rudy mood (when am I not?), I wanted to bring you this footage from CNN's Cafferty File.

As usual, Jack Cafferty takes aim at ignorant, arrogant or ill-informed Republicans; three hats that America's Mayor wears quite well.

In this footage, Cafferty gets viewer reaction to Congressman Ron Paul's assigning Rudy Giuliani a reading list. Paul's press conference really did make for good political theater, because it had the added value of being true.

Whoever wrote in and said that he was "sick and disgusted" and the hoots, hollers and wild applause after arrogantly trying to dismiss Paul's remarks about the root causes of 9-11.

I'm glad that Paul is not withering in the face of criticism from within his own party about the war. Paul represents a dying breed in American politics (much like Joe Lieberman) - minority voices that are not only afraid to speak out and to stand up to the leadership within their own party.

That takes political courage, and I applaud Paul for having something that most do not in contemporary American politics.

W won the battle, but he's still losing the war

Senator Chris Dodd, to date, has been as sensible as any Democratic Presidential Candidate about the War in Iraq. He's right - Bush is unwilling to do anything about his policy and the War in Iraq.

I've been pretty angry with Democrats about how they have capitulated to President Bush on Iraq, but I'm much more outraged at Republicans, who, through their votes, have allowed this idiotic, misguided war to continue. As far as I'm concerned, Republicans who voted for this war to continue all have blood on their hands. (And that goes for any Democrats [Hi, Senator Lieberman] who voted in favor of funding with no time tables for withdraw.)

As Thom Hartmann so succinctly put it on his radio show the other day, our collective outrage really had ought to be directed at Republicans, who allowed funding to continue by not giving either house in Congress a veto-proof majority to end funding for this war. But I've still got plenty of venom left for Democrats, too.

I just don't get it.

On Wednesday, Carl Hulse in the New York Times cited "senior Democrats" in a new analysis piece:

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Some lawmakers favored sending Mr. Bush another bill with a timetable for withdrawal and risking a second veto, the senior Democrats said. But they said they had questioned whether such a measure could pass the Senate a second time, raising the possibility that Congress would be left sitting on the bill and carrying the blame.

"It would have stayed at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said of a second timeline measure. I guess the current "leaders" in the Democratic Party have never heard of an idea called "having courage for your convictions."

First of all, who gives a DAMN about Bush criticism? I still cannot believe, after all that has happened in the last 6+ years, that the Democratic leadership still runs and hides at the threat of White House attacks. It pains me to write this, but somewhere, Rasputin Rove is sitting and laughing at this latest turn of events. Never in modern history in this country has a president with scarcely over 18 months left in his presidency wielded so much power.

The time table abandonment is particularly galling since the chief reason Democrats were put in power last November was to fight Bush on Iraq and to end this war.

The time for the Democrats to sink their teeth into Bush's rear end is now. The Democratic rank and file voters want them to do it. Public opinion is on the side of the Democrats, too. I'd like to know just what else they need to get this job done.

I've read all sorts of conflicting reports about what will happen next year - a second surge, increasing troops levels, a massive reduction in forces, or more of the same. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but this you can bet on - the Republicans will find a way to spin developments in Iraq to blame it all on Democrats.

But, who needs a crystal ball to figure that out?

Joe Lieberman is the new Zell Miller

I know even less than Joe Lieberman about the situation in Baghdad, but I'll confidently say this - I trust a reporter, in this case CNN's Michael Ware, a whole lot more than I do a Republican sycophant in Washington.

From what I'm reading, violence in Baghdad might be down slightly since the U.S. surge began, but violence is up all over the country.

Well, we've heard from McCain that things are better in Iraq, and we've heard from Joe Lieberman. Who's next? Was Rudy busy yesterday? What about Newt Gingrich?

I've got a good idea - why not get former Senator Bill Frist on the phone - he's masterful at diagnosing a situation with just a few minutes of video.

Lieberman and McCain - perfect together. Perfectly ignorant and ideologically programmed to believe that someday we'll be victors in Iraq.

Pathetic and sad - two men with a lot of good qualities, politically ruined (as they should be) because of their myopic views on this misbegotten war.

Joe Lieberman really is the new Zell Miller - loved by Repubes, despised by Democrats the world over. Joe's simply an ass with a trunk.

Worth another quick look - Freedom

It's been a while since I've posted this, so I thought I'd do it again. (I think the last time I put it up was the morning of election day last November.

With all that is going on and all the scandals that are rocking our nation's capitol these days, this video is still as apropos as ever. I still shake my head about Ned Lamont - I can't believe Joe Lieberman got reelected, especially considering his votes, behavior and remarks since beating Lamont last fall. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.

Enjoy it - I hope it motivates you a little bit to get a little more politically active if you aren't, or maybe even more if you already are. I strongly urge you to do something about all of the problems with our federal government. It's the primary reason I write on this blog, to try to affect even a *little* change.

To that end, I hope to be bringing you a lot more in the coming days. I've been hopelessly bogged down the last few evenings, and I won't get nearly as much up tonight as I'd like, but tomorrow evening is set aside for a great deal of writing. Much of it will be letter writing to members of Congress, and I will share the text of those letters on here, which you are free to use for your own letters that I hope you take a few minutes to write. That's why God (and Bill Gates) gave us copy/paste.

Please just go. Just gooooo, Joe.

I'm sick to death of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman being treated as more important than he really is. I know it would cost the Democrats control of the Senate, but I really don't care anymore.

Lieberman is getting a kick out of tickling both parties' butts with a feather, and the act is growing awfully tired.

What annoys me more than anything is that Lieberman seems to think that we can still "win" in Iraq. It's just like when taxes need to be raised (like right now, but that's another post) - no politician ever wants to say the truth, but we all know that a military solution/victory, short of quadrupling our troop level there, isn't going to happen.

But, politicians don't want to be painted as defeatist by telling the truth - that it's time to bring our boys home. Redeploy, redirect, redact - I don't care what you call it, but it's time.

Leaving isn't losing.

Joe Leaverman?

Word around the campfire is that Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (Above right, with John McCain), who has pledged to caucus (Congressional speak for "vote with") Democrats, is considering jumping ship and moving over to the Republican party.

Let him.

The last thing this party needs is another Zell Miller, a turncoat piece of garbage if there ever was one.

Yes, if the Democrats let Lieberman go, it will cost them control of the Senate, but in all honesty, I'd much rather see the Dems stick to their principles by not letting Joe dictate to them.

And besides, in another 18 months, we'll have another election, and by then, if the Democrats have done a decent job, the party will have a realistic shot at picking up more seats in the Senate - of the 33 Senate seats up for reelection in 2008, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. (See map above - Dark Blue is Democrats up for a reelection, dark red Republicans, and light red is retiring Republicans. Gray states have no one up for reelection.)

What's more, the Democrats hold such a slim majority right now, they don't have the votes to simply move forward with their agenda anyway. Sure, there would be disadvantages to sharing control with the Republicans if Joe moves to the GOP, which would necessitate the parties share power, but in the end, I don't want to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats get dictated to by a myopic Democrat who still blindly supports this war.

Let the GOP have a cup o' Joe.

John McCaned - straight talk express derailed

I've been waiting for a video compilation like this for a looong time. (I need to work on getting some video editing skills so I can do these myself.)

When are politicians going to learn that one hasn't been able to get away with lying about your past positions since the dawn of the video tape era? Presidents and politicians of both political parties are just a few examples in a long list of people who haven't learned this valuable yet simple lesson.

I've been saying for months (wait, check that - since I started this blog a little over 10 months ago) that judas john mccain is a turncoat sellout who has done more flip flops than 10 John Kerrys and will say virtually anything to be elected president.

Well, here's a pretty good compilation to prove it (above). It's part of a pretty good Website that you should check out - lots of mccain double-speak and outright lies.

Politicians must think the American people are pretty stupid, thinking we'll forget about some of this stuff. Well john, we're not stupid, and many of us don't forget, either.

The only drama left regarding mccain is whether the mainstream media will continue to lick his boots by referring to him as a "straight talker" and "maverick." I'm betting yes.

Hey mccain - do yourself a favor and don't resign from the Senate - because if you do, you won't have a seat to sit in when the music stops in '09.

So long, sell out.

Okay, he'll probably still make a run, and maybe even a strong one, before the Republican primaries are over next year, but I don't think he'll get the nomination. To be honest, my dream ticket for the Republicans is mccain/Lieberman. That would be money, prove endlessly entertaining, and also pretty damn beatable in '08.

Haven't had enough of the straight talker? Okay, here's more...



This one is a bit of an oldie, but it's still a goodie. It's from last fall regarding the North Korean crisis. This clip is of mccain and college dropout Sean Insanity griping about what we gave the North Koreans in the early 1990s during the Clinton administration, and also mccain telling everyone, in effect, to just shut up and stop criticizing the president.

What's funnier -- mccain blaming the North Korea crisis on President Clinton, or Insanity griping about the approximately $1 billion we gave North Korea?

When Clinton was in office, at least we had a dialogue with North Korea, and we were actually in the country. We can say neither now.

And the $1 billion? That's about 1/400th of what we've spent in Iraq, and there's no end in sight to that particular disaster. Of Bush's stupidly titled "Axis of Evil," who is the biggest danger to us now - North Korea, Iran or Iraq? A distant third would be Iraq, and that was true even before we got rid of Hussein.

We invaded Iraq for a quick triumph - we needed a feel-good victory dance following 9-11, because Bush reasoned we needed to celebrate our military might (and show it to the world) after the embarrassment and tragedy of 9-11.

Guess we got a little more than we bargained for, eh, Mr. President?

Okay, one more, just because it's so fun. This is addictive...



Here's a recent Meet the Press clip where mccain claims that Jerry Falwell is not an "agent of intolerance," a 180 degree switch from his position in 2000. I love how host Tim Russert uses mccain's own words from six years ago against him.

Keep in mind, since 2000, Falwell has blamed 9-11 on homosexuality and abortion. He's more of an agent of hatred and intolerance than ever, yet there's mccain, bowing down to Falwell and the radical religious right.

My favorite moment is when mccain opines that "a visit to Liberty University [which Falwell founded] is no different than a visit to Ohio State." The only explanation I can come up with is that judas john is off his meds. Can a visit to Bob Jones University be far behind? When is the David Duke endorsement? (A quick aside - am I the only one amused by the fact that one of the most conservative, religious schools in the country is known by the acronym "BJU"?)

Anyway, is there any constituency on the right with a butt too small for mccain to kiss to try and win the nomination?

Nope.

McCain's misguided Iraq proposal

Here's judas John McCain pontificating on how we are going to win or lose in Iraq in the next "several months" on Sunday's Meet the Press. What a truckload of crap. I'm sick and tired of hearing politicians say we can win in Iraq, all for political gain. There IS NO WINNING IN IRAQ, period, and the sooner our leaders realize it, the better. What, exactly, would constitute a victory? The terrorists laying down their arms and pledging not to kill any more Americans or Iraqis? That will never happen.

McCain is insane if he wants to send in more troops to that hell hole. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the move, and in this case, I think the opinion polls have a point. McCain correctly points out that you can't conduct foreign policy from opinion polls. I'd add "most of the time" to that phrase, though. And in this case, I'm afraid the American people are right.

What are more troops going to accomplish? More combat deaths. It's funny, as I listened to the whole episode of MTP, I was struck by the overtones of Vietnam in McCain's choice of words, i.e. - using phrases like "sweep and hold" and talking about the need for more troops. His reasoning, that chaos would spread in the area if we pulled out, is reminiscent of Vietnam; the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations all felt that if Vietnam fell to the communists, then all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. This "domino effect" never happened, and we paid for that mistake in a tragic amount of American blood - over 58,000 war dead. I hope and pray that we don't ever make that same mistake again, but we may be on the verge of doing just that. I feel analogies to Vietnam have been wildly overdone in the press, but it seems like we get closer and closer every day to that analogy becoming all too real.

What really riled me was when Russert pressed McCain on why the American people should believe him, or believe that his strategy would work, the Senator replied that people should trust him because of his military background. Spoken sotto voce, McCain is implying that because he spent 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton, we should trust his foreign policy proposals? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. I'm not Swiftboating McCain here - he's a hero and I can't even begin to imagine what he went through as a POW. But, that doesn't qualify him to set Iraq policy, or be president.

Just as an aside, where were the Democratic Senators on MTP on Sunday? I realize that Harry Reid, the soon-to-be Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was on Face the Nation, but I'm sure Tim Russert could have found someone from the Democratic side of the aisle. Joe Lieberman barely qualifies, since he's a self-identified "I.D.," as in "Independent Democrat," as he told Russert.

I wax and wane on whether I like Russert or not - it depends on the week, the guests, and the show, but most times he does a pretty effective job at taking politicians to task on their answers, especially when it differs from their past answers on the issues. One thing's for sure - Russert is always prepared, researched and ready to interview his guests, and most of the time, he's not afraid of the hard-hitting question, and that applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. Journalists of his ilk are in shockingly short supply these days.



Just a quick blast from the past. This is McCain on Meet the Press earlier this year, explaining that Jerry Falwell is NOT (emphasis mine) "an agent of intolerance." The Senator has a nice dodge at the end of this clip, too, when Russert asks him if he thinks Falwell is just that: "I think Jerry Falwell can explain his views on this program when you have him on."

I sure hope Democrats store away this video clip for the '08 campaign - this is shameless pandering to the far right for votes, and it sickens me. I won't even waste my time explaining why Falwell is so despicable, save for one example: following the 9-11 attacks, he opined that gays and abortion doctors were part of the reason the attacks happened.

Does that sound like intolerance to you?

Senator McCain, please run. Please.

He'll get torn to pieces, if the Democratic Nominee has any backbone.

A hilarious ad from a desperate Santorum

If you can't laugh at this ad, you can't laugh at anything. I dare you to watch this and not at least crack a smile.

An increasingly desperate Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum is now riding the coattails of... of... DEMOCRATS to try and get reelected to the U.S. Senate.

The ad above pretty much speaks for itself - Boxer, Clinton and Lieberman have been the enemy since Santorum was elected to the Senate, and now he's championing legislation he's worked on WITH this trio? This one's a knee slapper.

What's more, it will probably anger as many conservatives as it courts - the name Clinton drives some conservatives to go out and sacrifice animals.

Pack your bags, Rick.