The biggest reason I won't vote for McCain...

...and there are many, but the biggest reason is pictured at left.

Not that I needed it, but Bill Press validated my point and really hammered it home a week or so ago. Press was recalling an experience he had right here in Philadelphia during the 2000 circus Republican National Convention.

John and Cindy McCain, after Bush had accepted the Republican nomination for president, went out to dinner with a few journalists and friends, and Press was among them. At the dinner, according to Press, McCain had tears in his eyes as he described what the Bush campaign did to him and his family in South Carolina before that state's critical family, including calling him unpatriotic, spreading rumors about his fathering an illegitimate black child, and much worse.

At least in public, McCain has forgiven Bush, and he would be a whole lot easier to believe, if he weren't running for president. First of all, no man ever forgives the rumors and lies that the Bushies spread about McCain in South Carolina. No man.

In short, McCain's very public forgiveness and his literal and political embrace of Bush is nothing short of violently nauseating. I've said it many times, and I'll no doubt say it many times more before November - I very well might have voted for the 2000 version of McCain, but the '08 version? He strikes me as a sellout with no principles whatsoever.

Yea, yea, yea, I know the Christian belief in forgiveness, but if anyone ever said those things about my family, especially my wife and children, I may be able to forgive, but embrace publicly and politically? It would never happen.

The bottom line is - if McCain is willing to sell out his principles to someone like Bush to become president, what else would he do to achieve his political goals? My line of reasoning is not a stretch.

I'm normally not given to scripture, but since McCain paints himself as a religious man, I wonder if he's ever read or heard of this passage in the Bible - from Matthews 16:26...

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

I'm betting he hasn't. He sure isn't living it.

There are plenty of other reasons I won't even consider voting for McCain: the Keating Five; his refusal to admit failures in Iraq, and even his advocation of prolonging the war indefinitely; his views on Iran; his admitted cluelessness about the economy, and on and on.

But, the above picture says it all. I'm praying he picks Rudy 9iu11ani as his running mate.

Olbermann's Special Comment on Iran's nukes

I haven't posted a Keith Olbermann in a while, but this one is certainly worth sharing - a Special Comment on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that states that Iran gave up its nuclear program some time ago.

Of course, the war-mongering administration wasn't going to take this news sitting down.

There's not much I can add to this one, other than to say I whole-heartedly agree. Anyone who has been even remotely paying attention ought to be frightened at the roads Bush would love to take us down. The only thing stopping the president and his war cabinet are (God help us) mostly spineless Democrats, and Americans who speak out against another war. I'll go to my grave believing that Bush would have already drummed up a war against Iran had the Democrats not retaken Congress last year. Bush may get his war yet, and I still say that most American's won't care, as long as someone else is doing the fighting.

Probably the only way there will be any sort of significant uprising/backlash against the Bush administration, no matter where we fight and no matter how flimsy the justification, is if there is a draft. Bush knows this, and that's why the military has a massive army of private contractors, who are answerable to no one but the Pentagon, and ultimately, Bush.

My favorite passage from the clip above:

A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

It doesn't get much more succinct than that.

h/t Crooks & Liars

Get ready to get screwed @ the pump again

I'm so getting sick of this crap, and the only comfort I have is that I'm not alone. It seems like every time someone sneezes in the Middle East, it's an excuse for gas companies to hold economies hostage. What really angers me is that it seems like there's nothing we can do about it.

It's high time we elect some people who are willing to DO something about this. Honestly, until we have meaningful campaign finance reform in this country, I'm not at all confident that any of our politicians will beat back Big Oil. But, in the meantime, who do you think is the better party to take on Big Oil? If you answered "Republican," you desperately need to be confined to a political re-education camp.

(At top) Emily Bruce marches through the streets of San Francisco on Sunday, March 18, 2007, to mark the fourth anniversary of U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Today, ABC News reports that San Francisco is hurting with some of the highest gas prices in the nation (left), and in some places it's well over $4 a gallon.

Grrrrrrrrreat.

On top of it all, we are entering the time of year where oil companies typically raise prices because travel increases in the summer.

I sure would like to see Congress do some investigating of Big Oil and their reported "record profits." And when I say "investigating," I don't mean the typical, garden-variety press conference where politicians decry high gas prices, and then little more happens. I mean an investigation with teeth.

From ABC News today:

Nothing moves the price of gasoline more than the price of oil, and fears that the standoff over Britons held captive in Iran will lead to a major disruption in the supply of Middle East oil is taking an escalating toll on gas prices here in the United States.

At many gas stations in San Francisco today, the cost of filling up was well over $4 a gallon.

San Francisco may have the most expensive gas in the country, but prices are rising all over. In the last eight weeks, even before the current standoff with Iran, prices jumped 44 cents to a national average of $2.61 a gallon — 11 cents higher than a year ago.

Gas prices often shoot up in the spring, as refineries make the switch to summer-blend gasolines, creating glitches in supply. But the standoff with Iran has inflicted a double whammy on prices.

"I believe crude oil prices are going to continue to rise 50 cents to $1 each," said John Kilduff, an oil trader for Fimat USA, "and every day that this goes on until they stabilize at some point above $70 a barrel."

For now, consumers are grousing, but most seem not to be driving any less.

"At this point," said Mike Pina of AAA, "a lot of Americans are saying, 'Prices are high, but I've seen higher,' so they are not at the point yet where Americans are starting to change their travel plans."

Many consumers seem to be resigned to a new normal of higher and fluctuating gas prices.

Economists say a national average of $3 a gallon is probably the tipping point where driving habits change.

(Top photo - AP/Noah Berger)

Brit soldiers remain in Iran - uh-oh

This is a total disgrace - Iranians parading British soldiers before the cameras. The video is tough to look at for many reasons, but what's really the story here is that a viewer of this doesn't see - is a gun just off camera? Did Iranians threaten to kill the other hostages if this soldier didn't go before the cameras?

This situation is quite serious and bears watching.

It's being widely reported in Russia that the U.S. already has a date that the war with Iran will start - April 6. I don't know that I'm putting too much stock in that, but the fact that it cannot and is not dismissed out of hand by many is a sure indication of how far the Bush administration's credibility has suffered with many (most?) Americans.

I'll say this - if the Democrats had not taken control of Congress last November, we'd probably already be at war with Iran by now. You think that's a stretch? Take a quick read on a few snippets of Bush speeches from this year alone about Iran...

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," said Bush on January 10 during a televised address about the troop surge. He was referring to Iran, which, he reasoned, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

(Later his comment was clarified - he was referring to some advanced IED devices - improvised explosive devices - given to some anti-American death squads.)

Bush then put a shot across Iran's bow:
"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

In an interview for NPR on January 29, Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric a bit higher, saying, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly ... It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."

In his January address, Dubya also used the tried-and-true tactic for leading us to war - playing the nuclear weapon card. When asked to respond to the possibility of Iran's getting a nuclear weapon, Bush responded, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East."

During a Valentine's Day press conference, the president confidently declared that there are weapons in Iraq that are linked back to the Iranian government. Just days before this press conference, some military commanders in Iraq stated privately that some elements of the Iranian military - specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - were supplying IED devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that government officials high in the Iranian government knew about it. Other U.S. officials, including some in the House and Senate, expressed skepticism about the reliability of the evidence and the related intelligence. Does this sound familiar?!? However, none of this stopped Bush from plowing ahead:

"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."

(Skepticism be damned)

What needs to be explored, he continued at the press conference, is exactly how high in the Iranian government was the go-ahead given leading to the IEDs delivery to the Shia militias in Iraq.

But, that's inconsequential, eh confidently asserted. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."

I can just about guarantee you that we'd be at war if it weren't for a Democratic Congress. The whole script of "preventing [insert enemy of the United States Here] from obtaining a nuclear weapon" is the Dubya and Karl Rovian script for war.

And Bush might yet find a way to get us into a war with Iran. If it happens, I fearlessly predict that there will be a draft. Otherwise, I have no idea how our military would get the bodies to have a third war.

We watch, and wait. I hope those British troops are home safe and sound, very soon.

Some information for this post is from AlterNet. Click Here for the whole story, which is a good read.

Brits in Iran: it's getting tense

The British hostages situation in Iran is starting to turn into a pretty tense situation. As England's closest ally, we should be doing all we can to resolve this situation.

Wait, we don't talk to Iran - we never negotiation with terrorists. Let's just pretend the Iran/Contra Scandal never happened. *Cough Cough*

It's a disgrace that the Iranians put British soldiers on television yesterday. I'm not saying war with Iran should be completely ruled out, but I'm hoping it can be avoided. This reminds me of the American hostages - 52 Americans, held 444 days, from '79-'81.

Anyway, I'll offer this - if the Democrats had not taken control of Congress last November, I firmly believe that this would have been the incident that would have started a war with Iran.

Considering this administration's actions before and during the War in Iraq, who can really put up a strong argument against this line of thinking?