There are some things that are just inexcusable. This is one of them.
I've been to Trinity. I never felt out of place or unwelcome. Didn't hear a controversial sermon and never heard a cuss word. But I have heard for at least five years now how crazy that church is; how crazy the preachers are and how crazy the congregation can get. Growing up pentecostal, I suppose Trinity was tame to me.
Sure John McCain has his preacher troubles with Hagee and Parsley. But McCain has denounced both endorsements and as far as I know doesn't attend either church. This is a serious problem for Obama. One that could have been avoided years ago. All the silly gaffes of McCain misspeaking is nothing compared to this.
In all honesty, I don't know how a church can continue having political sermons and also continue to keep its tax exempt status. Though Hagee and Parsley both preach politics weekly as well, Obama's church is under a much greater microscope at the moment.
There's just no excuse Barack Obama. None whatsoever.
5.30.2008
Inexcusable
5.24.2008
The Burden of Bush
Wow! Poor ticket sales to a Bush-McCain fund raiser force the event to a smaller more private venue.
Compare this to our last two term president who is openly campaigning and raising record amounts of money for his wife. McCain has more than just a preacher problem. He has a Bush problem. How can John McCain not sale out an event in his own state with his own party's president? Yes, it's the Dems that are falling apart though.
5.23.2008
McCain's Preachers Problems
I grew up in a home that had John Hagee on television every day. The TV never really left TBN very much at all. That's just how it was. To this day I will find myself stopping on a Hagee sermon or a Benny Hinn heal-a-thon just because I grew up around that stuff. But even growing up I always questioned a lot of what the televangelists said and did. When I was old enough to make decisions on my own about church and religion, I never fully subscribe to everything I heard in church or on TBN. So it comes as no surprise to me when I see stuff like Hagee saying that Hitler was ordained with God's will for the Holocaust.
That's what Hagee and Rod Parsley do. They use whatever they can to build a following and to keep a following. Mostly with scare tactics and mostly with morals and values but always with what they interpret as The Bible. It was good to finally see a Republican presidential candidate reject Hagee and Parsley's hate speech. I've been waiting on the GOP to break with the wacko Christian Right for a long time now. I think McCain's sudden departure is a good thing for the future of the GOP. However, McCain's latest slap in the face to so-called conservatives does equate into lost votes. But for the future, which obviously I'm not intending to be this election, this is a bold move for McCain and the GOP.
I do think it's time for McCain to give a speech about his relationship with Hagee, or at least answer some questions as to why he sought his endorsement in the first place and how does he explain all the great things he has said about Hagee over the years.
5.20.2008
Just Giving It To Us Straight
We all know that John McCain is a serious straight talking maverick. And when he says something he means it, right? So when he says sooner or later we are going to have to deal with Hamas, the government of Palestine, in order to create peace in the region, what he's saying is that he means everything but TALKING with Hamas.
"Dealing with" must mean waging war because it's totally unpatriotic and appeasement that he would have meant TALKING with the Palestinian government. After all, had he meant TALKING he would have said it. It's a good thing McCain isn't suggesting appeasing terrorists.
Likewise, McCain's support of going to Syria, a country that has been known to harbor terrorists and supply the Iraqi insurgency-- or in other words a country responsible for killing Americans,-- and looking them straight in the eye and telling them to clean up their act, seems just as clearcut to me as well. When McCain says that it's right to go to Syria for the stare down, he obviously is saying that we should wage glorious war on them. I just wish other people would understand the vast differences between what Barack Obama is saying and what John McCain has been straight talking to us.
5.09.2008
The Maverick Card
This is one of those things that can be two fold. I can't help but think that it only reinforces the myth of McCain being a maverick.
I would say it's pretty evident that John McCain didn't vote for George Bush in 2000. Who could blame the guy? After what he went through in the primary I probably would have done the same thing. Plus this goes right along with McCain nearly switching parties in 2002, which we know to be accurate. I think, however, this helps him more than hurts him.
For example, as Lisa talked about yesterday, George Bush is still decently popular amongst the core Republican base. They have their frustrations with him but right now his 26% or so approvals is only there because of that base. If it weren't for them he probably would have been forced to resign by now. So that gives us a president with a 71% disapproval rating whom John McCain didn't vote for even though Bush was his party's nominee. Sounds like a rebel to me. This makes independents and the other 20% of the people who voted for Bush but wish they hadn't tend to like him more, I think.
McCain has just the opposite problem than Bush. McCain's disapproval comes largely within the Republican caucus while remaining popular with independents and conservative leaning Democrats. So I could see how bringing up the fact that McCain is really a Democrat in disguise really adds what might be the final nail into his Republican support coffin. Because surely McCain will need at least half of those 26% who still support George Bush to vote for him as well if he wants any chance in the general. So, I see it as two fold. Though I'm leaning to it helping him more than hurting him. But I've been wrong before; many times.
5.08.2008
The Most Relevant Question Asked Yet
Jon Stewart finally asked the most relevant question yet of John McCain. Sadly, Stewart is not a journalist. Even more sadly, by Stewart asking the question the media establishment is almost assuredly not to address the matter any further. I can just see the MSM refusing to take its cues from a political satirist/comedian. I would be amazed to see anyone actually follow up on Stewart's most reasonable question.
Last week I wrote about the publics concern of John McCain's relationship with the most unpopular president in modern history, George W. Bush. For over a month all we heard was about Obama's relationship to his preacher, and anyone else he might have met in his lifetime. Very little coverage about McCain's endorsement by hate preachers Rod Parsley and John Hagee. And nothing about George Bush's Rose Garden endorsement and the warm relationship Bush and McCain share. Even though the public is way more concerned about McCain and Bush than about anyone with ties to Obama, there's been zilch covered about the two by the media establishment.
Finally, Jon Stewart forced McCain to acknowledge something the media won't.
I wonder what would happen if the media applied the same sort of scrutiny to John McCain as it has Barack Obama? We have a two term president with approval ratings hovering around the mid 20s. These approval ratings haven't seen the mid 30s in over a year. And we have not one question presented to the GOP heir apparent about why he hasn't denounced someone who is obviously not well liked and certainly opposed by more than 70% of the population. This would be the most relevant question to ask anyone who is the GOP nominee.
*Update:
Originally I had a video of the Daily Show exchange up but it appears not to be working at the moment. Once I figure out the problem I'll get the video back up.
5.03.2008
Conservative Crisis
I gotta hand it to Josh Marshall. He lays things out so clearly that even an idiot like me can understand them. Take for instance his nice summary of the Social Security shortfall crisis that Republicans love to stroke off to versus the much more serious and completely fiscally responsible 100 year military presence McCain and Republicans want in Iraq.
According to Republicans, Social Security is in a shortfall crisis. For as long as I can remember, which stretches back to the early 90s, Social Security has been one of the hot button topics Republicans claim to have a grasp on. The crisis to them is that soon, very soon, the SSA is going to run out of money to pay retirees. According to the Congressional Budget Office that date comes sometime in 2040. So in 32 years if no adjustments are made to Social Security there won't be enough money to pay out. I'm not suggesting that adjustments and tweaks don't need to be made to Social Security, far from it exactly. I'm just pointing out that even if we do nothing and just sit on our hands it will take about 40 years before the Republican crisis hits. That doesn't sound like a soon approaching crisis to me at all.
But let's look at the McCain Doctrine that calls for an American presence in Iraq for at least another 100 years. According to the CBO, a 77 year presence in Iraq would cost $3 trillion dollars. Keep in mind that's just for a peaceful presence, which McCain says if our troops our dying we can't leave, but if they aren't then we can stay forever. Over that same 77 year period the CBO predicted Social Security shortfall would be $4.3 trillion. To Republicans this shortfall is so serious and in such disarray that it must be fixed immediately by doing away with the entire system. But war forever in Iraq is so sane and so patriotic that it can never be questioned especially in terms of fiscal responsbility.
Now as Josh Marshall notes, the SSA uses three different projections for long term solvency. Under the most intermediate plan, the one generally used by the government, the SSA will still be running a SURPLUS in 2085 and not a shortfall. That means the so-called impending crisis of Social Security would still be in the black, if left alone, whereas John McCain's war in Iraq would still be raging and costing $3 trillion.
Republicans, neocons and so-called conservatives will leave this alone. It makes too much sense for them to actually try and tackle it. They know as well as anyone else that the media establishment wouldn't dare pick up on this because that would mean less time on Rev. Wright and Miley Cyrus. So McCain and his GOP will get away with warmongering and make believe impending doom. Probably never once being questioned about his own words and the cost of those words. And we can't forget either that the last 8 years of Bush incompetency and complete fiscal irresponsibility can never be mentioned when discussing McCain as well. Instead Social Security that could possibly be running a SURPLUS in 2085 is doomed but war in Iraq forever is serious talk.
5.01.2008
How Republicans Govern
McCain praised the woman’s treatment and later said some earmarks were clearly worthy. “It’s the process I object to,” McCain told reporters. “We need to start over from scratch.” […] “When you earmark in the middle of the night you have no budgetary constraints,” he said.
While the media is fascinated with Rev. Wright, and while the GOP is happily pursuing every avenue of keeping the media's attention on Wright and away from George Bush, Iraq and the last 8 years of utter incompetency, John McCain's inability to tell the same story twice has went relatively unnoticed.
Besides wanting to stay in Iraq forever, McCain has also made numerous remarks about how he would handle budgetary matters as president. As routine readers will note, I have no qualms about laughing at Republican talk of fiscal responsibility and small government. Their whole platform of small government and fiscal conservatism is but a joke because once they get in office they do the exact opposite of everything they proclaim to believe. Well here we have a perfect example of how John McCain falls perfectly inline with the Republican facade of conservatism.
In July of 2007 candidate McCain said he would change how the government deals with spending budgets:...if elected President I'm going to change the way we deal with spending in Washington. The presidency has many powers. One of the most useful is the veto pen. ...Give me the pen, and I'll veto every single pork barrel bill Congress sends me, and if they keep sending them to me, I'll use the bully pulpit to make the people who are wasting your money famous.
He's going to veto every single pork barrel bill Congress sends him. We all know that can't possibly be true. The Straight Talking Express is blowing smoke, but the so-called conservatives eat it up. As the old saying goes, one person's trash is another person's treasure, the same proves true for pork spending. What one person or Fantasy World Republican might call pork another reality based person calls an earmark. For instance, after Think Progress along with many very attentive bloggers pointed out that military aid to Israel is a line-item earmark (aka pork) McCain backtracked and said he would not veto aid to Israel.
Then on April 24 of this year McCain again Straight Talked himself in circles and said that he would determine spending cuts on a needs basis.I can assure them that the earmarks that they have received, which have been few and far between because they are not represented by powerful lobbyists and special interests in Washington, that we will judge any expenditure of the American people’s tax dollars on the basis of need.
That's a far cry from vetoing every earmarked bill congress sends him. Nevertheless, circle jerk Republicans and so-called conservatives eat it up.
And yesterday the Maverick tells the American people that it's not necessarily pork earmarks that he opposes, it's the process.
All within a years time McCain has went from pledging to veto any bill containing earmarks to only vetoing bills that don't have aid to Israel, to judging earmarks on a needs basis, to not being opposed to pork at all just the process. It would not have taken nearly a year for McCain to finally come around to telling us how he would really govern if the media establishment had done it's job. Barack Obama is held to words he never said, words other people spout but John McCain isn't once held to his own.
This is how Republicans govern. Time and time again I write about it. There are no bigger recipients of welfare than members of congress. And no congress did more to expand that welfare than the Republican-controlled congress of 1995-2007. Not one time did President Bush, the epitome of modern conservatism, ever veto a single bill while the Republicans were in control. Instead Bush increased the size and scope of the federal government more so than any president since 1932. Not even as much of a whimper from the GOP during this time. Never, not in one single instance, did Bush call for a restraint on spending. In fact, he turned the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit in history. Here, again, we have another Republican sweet talking conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and small government ideas on a campaign trail. And this time we have that Republican candidate openly admitting that his pledge to veto every single earmark isn't even close to being true. The attention, luckily for the GOP, by the MSM is instead focused on words another candidate never said. Latest polls show us that the American people are more concerned about McCain's ties to Bush than Obama's ties to a crazy preacher. None of that gets through to the MSM and the GOP is hoping, praying that no one catches on.
h/t Think Progress
*Update:
New CNN poll has Bush as the most unpopular president in modern American history. Fantasy World Republicans will say this only proves that Bush is a true leader because he doesn't listen to what the polls say. But not listening to what polls say has nothing to do with leading. Not to mention I would be interested in hearing one, just one, successful policy objective in Bush's two terms. Any takers?
4.30.2008
Poll: Bush Bigger Burden to McCain Than Wright to Obama
Finally some numbers on how the Republican nominee has yet to get drilled by
the media establishment for his ties to very unpopular people. So far all we've heard about is Obama and his ties to terrorists, liberals and wacko preachers. But nothing so far about McCain's ties to the biggest terrorist supporters in the world (the Saudis) or his ties to one of the most unpopular people to ever grace the American public, George W. Bush.
- 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration.
- 36 percent have major concerns that Clinton seems to change her position on some issues (like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which her husband signed but which she now opposes)
- 34 percent say they’re bothered by Obama’s “bitter” remarks
- 32 percent have a major problem with the Illinois senator’s past associations with Wright and the 1960s radical William Ayers
- 27 percent have serious concerns that Bill Clinton would have too much influence on U.S. policy decisions if his wife is elected
4.19.2008
Talk About Cheap Shots
McCain letter relates Obama to Hamas.
It's a good thing McCain is such a straight talking maverick or he just might have run the first real negative ad of the general election.
4.14.2008
McCain Huddles The Masses
“Americans are hurting today,” McCain said at an Associated Press forum in Washington, D.C. “They’re hurting in the towns and cities across America. They’re sitting around the kitchen table, saying, ‘Are we going to be able to make our home loan mortgage payments? Are we going to be able to -- do I have to try to get a second job? Can I keep my job? Why was I laid off?’”McCain went on to add that he thinks the U.S. is in a recession and that President Bush and some very greedy people on Wall St. are to blame. How proletariat of him.
Imagine if you will, if the communist loving, terrorist sympathizing, elitist Barack Obama had said something like this. Well, then, The Economist might have printed an editorial denouncing Obama as a feel good populist or something.
4.09.2008
Who The Opposition Is
I'm not quite sure what to make of this and had I not seen Lisa's post about Democrats supposedly pulling cheap shots by calling McCain a warmonger, which Obama issued a statement denouncing Shultz-- although I do agree with Shultz-- I probably would have left it alone. Here we have David Bellavia who is a GOP congressional candidate from New York, introducing John McCain by saying you can have your Tiger Woods, we've got John McCain.
What does that even mean? At face value it appears he is referring to Obama's ethnic diversity by referencing the most famous athlete in the world who is also from a very ethnically diverse background. What else could he be talking about? I'm not sure it's a racist statement but it surely is a cheap shot. Then we have McCain embracing him with a hug.
There is no doubt John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq forever. He's stated numerous times he sees nothing wrong with staying for hundreds of years or thousands of years. That sounds like a warmonger to me. But is there any defense of mentioning Tiger Woods in a context that is confusingly disingenuous at best and racist at worst.
No, cheap shots aren't just something the Dems are practicing.
4.08.2008
Last Throes
I think we g
ot a pretty honest assessment from Gen. Petraeus today. My more liberal and left of center friends will probably disagree with me on this though. However, I thought this time around the general was much more honest and out front with his answers than he was last time. There is no way this war can be summed up in Congressional testimony. And there's no way this war can be talked about without mentioning how we got here in the first place. And finally, I think the general laid it out best when he said the following.
PETRAEUS: It is very fair, Senator, and it's why I repeatedly noted that we haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.Five years into a three week war this is where we stand. Fragile, reversible and ongoing. It boils down to what I said the other day. Republicans want to stay in Iraq forever. McCain's stance on Iraq is as long as we are incurring casualties we can't leave, but if troops aren't dying then we can stay forever. 100 years or 10,000 years doesn't matter to McCain and the GOP. They would gladly send their generals to testify before Congress every six months or so if that keeps their war going forever.
4.07.2008
VP News
Dan Senor tells ABC News that Condoleezza Rice wants McCain's VP slot. The general assumption is that Rice would counter Obama's blackness. For a candidate who is already not very popular amongst the Party's right wing conservative base, I don't see how choosing a black gay female is good a way to improve his standing. McCain has yet to win the conservative vote in a single contested primary. Somehow I don't think adding Rice as VP is going to help his chances in the general with the right wing. Adding diversity to the GOP ticket is the last thing its supporters want.
4.02.2008
Because Only Real Patriots Wear Flag Pins
Can it get any more pathetic? Karl Rove criticizes Obama for not wearing a flag on his lapel.
Rove: "Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism."
GQ: "You're not wearing a flag pin, Karl."
Rove: "Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But I respect those who consciously get up in the morning and put a flag lapel pin on."
This is about the most retarded thing ever! In the Republican fantasy world patriotism is not fighting in the war that you so insist is the struggle of our generation, it's wearing a stupid pin on your jacket. Notice McCain doesn't wear one. Since he's a Republican, at least this year he is, he doesn't have to wear one. But Democrats that don't wear flag pins are not patriots. To Rove, and his fantasy world Republicans, getting up in the morning and putting on that pin is true patriotism. It's not getting up in the morning and smelling the napalm. Oh no, it's getting up in the morning, shaking off your wood from your wet dreams of war without end and slapping on a flag pin. That's patriotism. And that's the current state of the GOP. I would be embarrassed to be associated with such. Can you say fascism?
3.24.2008
The Maverick: A Republican Before He Was Against It (Update I, Update II)
Nice rundown in the NY Times today about Republican presidential nominee John McCain almost deflecting to the Democrats, twice. The first time in 2001 is well known. The second time in 2004 as a possible VP candidate with John Kerry is news to me. George Bush's treatment of McCain in the 2000 Republican primary is probably as low as any candidate has ever stooped. The scars were deep for McCain:
In the spring of 2001, Mr. McCain was by most accounts still angry about the smear campaign that had been run against him when he was campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in the South Carolina primary the previous year. He had long blamed the Bush campaign for spreading rumors in the state that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock, which Bush aides denied. Mr. McCain was also upset that the new White House had shut the door on hiring so many of his aides.In 2004, I guess I never really realized that McCain was still thinking of switching or how close it had come.
But less than three years later, Mr. McCain was once again in talks with the Democrats, this time over whether he would be Mr. Kerry’s running mate. In an interview with a blog last year, Mr. Kerry said that the initial idea had come from Mr. McCain’s side, as had happened in 2001.McCain never denies putting thought into switching parties. His rendition is that it was always the Democrats who approached him. Of course the Dems are saying it was McCain reaching out to them; whatever the case may be there's no denying McCain became disillusioned with the very Party he is now greatly dependent upon sending him to the White House. Switching parties isn't something you daydream about. And you don't just sit down with the Democratic nominee for president as he did in 2004 if you aren't at least somewhat serious about making the jump.
{...}
Two former Kerry strategists said last week that Mr. Weaver went to Mr. Kerry’s house in Georgetown a short time after Mr. Kerry won the Democratic nomination in March and asked that Mr. Kerry consider Mr. McCain as his running mate. (Mr. Weaver said in his e-mail message that the idea had come from Mr. Kerry.)
McCain has yet to win the conservative vote during an actually challenged primary. That spells real trouble for a guy who contemplated switching to the liberal/islamofascist/enemy insurgent/anti-American Party twice.
*Update:
I'm gonna have to disagree with Yglesias on this.
I think it's pretty clear that McCain's been less-than-totally honest about this stuff, but beyond that, what's the point? I'm not really sure what the point is, myself. On the one hand, to some extent it highlights McCain's unseriousness about the bulk of domestic policy issues that he's drifted around so much on those topics and was willing to consider basically jettisoning his entire record. But at the end of the day, he didn't do it and (especially in 2001) domestic issues were presumably at the center of that. He really does have a conservative record and a conservative self-conception, and wanted to stick with that.The POINT is less than four years ago the Republican nominee for president almost became a Democrat. Maybe Yglesias is trying to say that McCain's almost switcharoo isn't that serious and in substance I understand that. But it's the little things like this that Democrats have been terrible at formulating over the years. McCain, who is having demonstrable trouble with conservative voters, can't really afford any more dents to his conservative credentials. And to conservatives, especially right wingers and neoconservatives, there's nothing worse than being a Democrat except for maybe being a Republican who wishes he was a Democrat. Remember, being a Democrat is just a step above being a terrorist and here you have the Republican torch bearer voting against the precious tax cuts and almost switching parties. How much more of a terrorist sympathizing liberal commie could this guy be?
Sure this isn't something the DNC or Obama needs to stump with but this is just a story the MSM would love if the roles were reversed. Not to mention, Hillary would have her Camp distributing all kinds of Benedict Arnold emails, mailers, text messages, whisper campaigns and the likes. And the Clinton's do know a thing or two about winning presidential elections. Yglesias is too smart not to realize how much this hurts McCain in the conservative Republican base.
**Update II:
Entire Fox morning show dedicated to covering the imploding Democratic Party. FNC never ceases to amaze me with this stuff. Here we have the Republican nominee, who can't win the conservative vote (aka the party's supposed base) who less than four years ago considered switching parties and becoming a VP candidate with the most liberal Democrat to run for office in decades, and the big story at Fox News is not that the Republicans have a situation on their hands, it's that the Democrats have two people still vying for the nominee. What Fox isn't grasping, or fails to grasp, is the fact that the Dems are experiencing the highest primary turnout in modern history. And even though Dem voters prefer Obama or Hillary, they don't necessarily have any qualms about voting for either one. Just the opposite is happening to John McCain. In their make believe world, it's the Dems who are on the verge of collapse, however.
3.12.2008
Who's Really the Republican Candidate?
In Mississippi yesterday Hillary, a Democrat, got more conservative votes than the Republican nominee John McCain, 74,069-62,788.
She also got 1/3 the Republican votes as McCain. That's not too bad considering she's on the opposing ballot. Since Republican voters are uneasy about their candidate, to say the least, a couple weeks of campaigning and a little more pushing by Limbaugh and she could be their nominee. I'd be almost willing to bet that if she knew that would get her the presidency she'd switch parties in a heartbeat. Who knew the Clinton's could be so popular amongst Republicans. While I'm on the subject, Hillary almost doubled the other Republican contender on the ballot, Mike Huckabee. To be fair, Huck had already pulled out of the race and didn't do any formal campaigning. Yet that didn't stop over 16,000 Republicans from voting for him.
It's a sad situation when McCain can't even win the conservative vote over Hillary. But the chaos and implosion totally belongs to the Dems. Please! I think the MSM is the front runner for the inaugural Fantasy World Award.
Source: MSNBC Exit Polls.
2.29.2008
I Dare You To
After yesterday's Bush moment where he specifically calls out Obama, it now appears that the Democratic front runner is not only running against Hillary but also John McCain and George Bush.
He's getting hit from three sides and handling it well. Most people who don't know Obama say that he won't be able to handle the pressure. That once people start attacking him he won't know how to respond, he'll shy away and his hope message will become blurred. I've been hearing this since 2003 about Obama. And not once has he ever shied away, or not taken an argument head on. I've been telling people since the first day I met Obama that he's at his best when others doubt him. This week has been a perfect example of that.
Instead of backing away from the president's bully pulpit, Obama responded immediately to Bush. And today when Hillary ran her 3am ad, Obama wasted no time hitting back. His honest, fact-based answers are what has drawn me to him since the days I worked for him in the senate.
Obama ties all three opponents into one well rounded concise response:
I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.It's finally time the politics of fear ends. There isn't any one person taking on three opponents right now like Obama is and his momentum continues to grow. I dare anyone to doubt him.
Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation.
*Update:
How's this for rapid response?
2.27.2008
Because Being a Man Means Never Saying Sorry
Rule #1 in the neoconservative rule book is that tough manly men full of patriotism never apologize for anything. Even when they are flat out wrong, like Bush on Iraq, or like Alberto Gonzalez testifying before Congress, or like Dick Cheney on everything from the last 15 years. Because when you do say you're sorry, you only show weakness, and the one thing you never apologize about is telling liberals how it is.
The Republican presidential nominee is about to find that out quicker than snot. After McCain supporter Bill Cunningham referred to Democratic front runner Obama as a hack and Daley style Chicago politician, and then ever so slightly referring to him as being a clothed fake, McCain apologized for Cunningham's remarks stating that both Hillary and Obama are to be treated with respect."I apologize for it," the Arizona senator told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask about Cunningham's comments.
Since McCain's apology, Cunningham has pulled his support of McCain and says he will endorse Hillary. And the right wing has been hammering McCain all day for his sissy behavior.
"I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."
I'll have more on this later once I read up some more because the right wing response to McCain's call for respect has me perplexed for the moment and I'm sure I don't have all the details.
2.21.2008
What's John To Do?
First of all, if I was John McCain or a McCain supporter (and I'm neither) I'd be furious with the NY Times. I don't know how many have read the story but I kept waiting for the smoking gun per se. It reads to me as a bunch of allegations with no support. It's clear McCain's aides saw something between their boss and Iseman they thought didn't look so great in the public eye. But that's a long way from an affair, or unethical ties to a lobbyist. Even McCain admits to some inappropriate behavior, which we can only conclude means something more than a friendly relationship, but still The Times would have better off not to run this story, or at least run it without the support it needs.
Judging on past allegations of extra marital affairs, if McCain is elected president, Congress should immediately setup an independent council with an unlimited budget and subpoena powers to investigate the president. That's the precedent set by Congress and it should be followed as intended. Allegations turn into coverups and coverups into grand juries and grand juries into impeachment. Oh it will be a fun time.
*Update:
The more I think about it, if I were Mitt Romney or a Romney supporter (and I'm neither) I would be furious with The Times too. Why did they wait this long to run their meaningless story? Even though it's nothing but allegations, it would have no doubt benefited Romney more than anyone else. I know The Times says they waited until they had a complete story before they ran it but the convenience of that answer suffices to say Romney should be just as mad as McCain. A story like this could have changed the entire primary for the GOP, especially since GOPers consider themselves so morally superior to everyone else. Here's some coverage of how Camp Romney feels right about now.
*Photo courtesy NY Times.
