McCain Will Have to Go With Pity Before Too Long

Isn't it time for McCain to fire the people he just put in place? The Wall Street Journal tries to pigeonhole the candidates and the respective "roles" that they are playing. The McCain Media Mancrush isn't completely over yet:

Sen. McCain appears to play up the idea that he is running behind.

"I'm the underdog in this campaign. I'm the underdog. Have no doubt about it," he told supporters at a Nevada fund-raiser on Tuesday on Lake Tahoe. "That's a place I enjoy because that invigorates me, it makes me campaign harder, it energizes our supporters and our friends."

Sen. McCain enjoys the underdog role, and arguably is at his strongest when he's behind. He ran as the underdog in the GOP primary almost until the end.

Analysts said the danger to Sen. McCain's approach, such as with his new ad, is it can be seen as whining about Sen. Obama's successes rather than promoting Sen. McCain's own. And it remains unclear if it will stoke voter concerns about Sen. Obama or reinforce his front-runner status.

As his attacks falter, and they will because there's no substance to anything he's doing, McCain is probably going to have to use pity before too long. As in, take pity on my disasterous campaign and help me finish with a respectable number of electoral votes this fall.

Hat in hand, McCain will have no coattails this Fall, and may face the worst beating of any candidate since Mondale. That's not hyperbole--that's a recognition of the fact that Americans typically don't vote for underdogs or show anyone pity or mercy. They want a President, not a charity case.

--WS

Presidential

Senator Barack Obama in Iraq with General David Petraeus:

BOTH Photos: (AP Photo/Ssg. Lorie Jewell, HO)

Was this a fake interview with General Petraeus? Andrea Mitchell does everything she can to carry water for John McCain and ends up looking just as irrelevant, confused and as lost as he is. These are the photos that the chattering class in Washington DC did their damnedest to keep you from seeing because it blows their "narrative" sky high. John McCain doesn't look Presidential--he looks confused and lost when compared to Obama.

And doesn't the good General look like he's found a new friend?

[h/t to Daily Kos diarist drational...]

UPDATE: More desperate hysterics from the right wing (Instapundit):

A PREDICTION: If Barack Obama is elected President, he'll be far more warlike than President Bush, and far more warlike than his pre-election rhetoric suggests. Because before he's elected President, attacks on America are just attacks on America. But after he's elected President, attacks on America will also be attacks on Barack Obama.

And Keith Olbermann will describe the mushroom cloud over Tehran as "awesome in its rampant Technicolor beauty."

Yeah, that'll happen--if only because the calm, cool, rational people always fly off the handle for no reason and start wars while the insecure, daddy-hating dry drunks always make sane, sober choices. And doesn't that also mean that Obama really is patriotic? Just sayin'.

--WS

What's a Candidate Supposed to Do?

You'd think they would praise Obama for ignoring the foreign media--where virtually nothing that is written is going to help him but will likely hurt him because there has been a slew of negative criticism from Drudge and other outlets as to how "popular" Obama is overseas. Witness the story about Obama's rock star appeal to foreigners.

Barack Obama is on his way to Europe, where an adoring public awaits. But I wonder if the reception would be quite so enthusiastic if Obama's fans across the Atlantic knew a dirty little secret of his remarkable presidential campaign: Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America's image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists. When the press plane leaves tonight for his trip, there will be, as far as I know, no foreign media aboard. The Obama campaign has refused multiple requests from international reporters to travel with the candidate.

As a German correspondent in Washington, I am accustomed to the fact that American politicians spare little of their limited time for reporters from abroad. This is understandable: Our readers, viewers and listeners cannot vote in U.S. elections. Even so, Obama's opponents have managed to make at least a small amount of time for international journalists. John McCain has given many interviews. Hillary Clinton gave a few. President Bush regularly holds round-table interviews with media from the countries to which he travels. Only Obama dismisses us so consistently.

Sounds pretty whiny, actually--almost like the reporter in question is about to burst into tears because he's not having his ass kissed.

The Germans are carrying water for the Republican Party--why would Obama bother to talk to German media? He has anonymous German politicians helping perpetrate the smears that the American Republican Party would love to spread through any means possible:

His appearance at the "Victory Column" in Berlin's central Tiergarten park is expected to draw huge crowds and is being likened in advance to former president John F. Kennedy's celebrated "Ich bin ein Berliner" performance of 1963.

But in the German Chancellery a few hundred meters away there is unease with the Illinois senator's cult-like following and skepticism about whether he can live up to the hype.

"There is a sort of Obama-mania in Germany right now, but I think a lot of people will have their illusions shattered if he does become president," an official in Chancellor Angela Merkel's office told Reuters, requesting anonymity.

You know, that first summit between Merkel and Obama is likely to be interesting.

What no one points out is that, when McCain talks to the foreign media, he has to have Joe Lieberman close at hand to help him tell the players apart. When Obama talks to the media, he is focused on the US media because he's not the President--he's running for the job and he's trying to bolster his foreign policy credentials. All of the favorable stories in the overseas media would just be used against him anyway, so what does he do? He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and he's never going to get the favorable treatment that McCain enjoys.

--WS

They're Not Giving McCain Money Because They Think He's an Asshole

Really, how much more simple is it than that?

Few House Republicans have contributed to Sen. John McCain since he clinched the Republican nomination at the end of February.

McCain, Arizona’s senior senator, has had a far warmer reception in the upper chamber. At least 22 Senate colleagues have contributed to McCain’s campaign, including Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who attends Democratic caucus meetings. [out of 49!]

Only 21 House Republicans have given to McCain from their personal campaign accounts since he became the presumptive GOP nominee four and a half months ago, according to an analysis of House fundraising reports made public Wednesday. [out of 199!]

In addition, eleven House Republicans who did not give from their personal campaign accounts this year contributed from their leadership political action committees (PACs), according to fundraising reports covering the election cycle through the end of May.

So while nearly half the Senate GOP conference has given to McCain, less than 20 percent of House Republicans have pitched in.

How is it that ALL of them have not given the nominee of their party any money? I mean, a hundred bucks. Fifty bucks. Here you go. Perfunctory and obligatory, there's your money, now go run for President and lose. Ten bucks? Five?

Here's the answer you won't find in the Mancrush Media--a startling number of the members of the House and the Senate think John McCain is a self-centered, heavy-handed flaming asshole. They have, repeatedly and consistently, been saying as much since the day McCain got to the Hill. The people who have glommed onto McCain don't like him--they want things from him. He engenders little or no camaraderie with people beneath him and probably had more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle than on the Republican side--like Lieberman (who used to pretend to be a Democrat) and ex-buddy John Kerry. Good luck finding anyone who has the guts to write that--they are few and far between.

Update: Case in point. "McCain's Humor Often Backfires."

McCain's political allies also sometimes feel the sting. He has jokingly threatened staffers with waterboarding (a practice he condemns as torture). After former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a close McCain adviser, dismissed talk of a bad economy as mere psychology, McCain told reporters he planned to make Gramm — who had been seen as a prospective Treasury secretary — ambassador to Belarus.

--WS

Gates Makes His Case to Stay on at Defense

While we're not huge fans of some of his earlier work, we bear a grudging respect for what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been doing--and saying--as of late. It's too bad the Republicans went out and found a Secretary of Defense who, essentially, rips the guts out of every argument John McCain and his surrogates have been making this year.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy, saying the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries, with the military playing a supporting role.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism, Gates said, arguing that military action should be subordinate to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism.

I can't wait for the outcry--Secretary Gates has basically undercut the rationale for staying in Iraq, effectively debunking the myth that if we don't fight them over there, we'll end up having to fight them over here. He has put the onus on Secretary Rice, who has never been up to the task. Her State Department is a shambles, with hundreds of key positions unfilled for months and years.

Every time McCain talks about attacking Iran, staying in Iraq, or using war as the instrument of our foreign policy--he should be hammered with this quote from Gates. McCain's manly boast about "I know how to win wars" should have been met with laughter and derision. Instead, the Man Crush continues.

We don't need another Richard Cohen type situation--Gates should not be kept by a possible Obama administration, if only because we need to develop Democrats who can effectively lead on defense issues.

[h/t to Juan Cole]

--WS

The Strain Between The Reagans and John McCain

Someone has finally managed to write about the less-than-enthusiastic endorsement John McCain received from Nancy Reagan earlier this year. The Los Angeles Times has a story out about how McCain's infidelity and his abandonment of his first wife put a great deal of strain on the relationship between the Reagans and McCain in the early 1980s. This is a shocking revelation, in a campaign so full of shocking revelations that I can hardly keep up:

In a written statement, she [Nancy Reagan] described McCain as "a good friend for over 30 years." But that friendship was strained in the late 1970s by McCain's decision to divorce his first wife, Carol, who was particularly close to the Reagans, and within weeks marry Cindy Hensley, the young heiress to a lucrative Arizona beer distributorship.

The Reagans rushed to help Carol, finding her a new home in Southern California with the family of Reagan aide Edwin Meese III and a series of political and White House jobs to ease her through that difficult time.

McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record.

In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.

"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

Now, once again--are you shocked that the official record contradicts what McCain said?

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Until McCain filed for divorce, the Reagans and their inner circle assumed he was happily married, and they were stunned to learn otherwise, according to several close aides.

"Everybody was upset with him," recalled Nancy Reynolds, a top aide to the former president who introduced him to McCain.

What were they upset by? The possible bigamy--which is probably questionable, but who the hell takes out a marriage license to another woman while they're still married to another woman? The womanizing? The lying? The adultery--which, correct me if I'm wrong, is something the military frowns on. Remember--McCain was on active duty until 1981.

But the Media Mancrush continues unabated.

I went to lawyers.com, because that's how I roll, and I even looked it up--when you take out a marriage license, you have to provide:

Copies of divorce decrees from any former marriages will need to be presented.

And McCain wasn't divorced yet! Does that mean anything? Probably not, but oh well.

Chalabi and McCain

Ahmed Chalabi went to Tehran this past week, and Juan Cole (by way of Amanda Terkel) brings up a brilliant point about the "foreign policy judgement" of John McCain:

Ahmad Chalabi, meeting in Tehran with Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani, commented on the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraq government:

'The INC's Chalabi retorted that granting immunity to US military personnel from prosecution under Iraqi law is baldly unacceptable. “The vast majority of Iraqi people and authorities oppose the security treaty and regard it as contradictory to Iraq's sovereignty and security.” Chalabi stated the treaty is counterproductive for Iraq in the long term and what the US is seeking is a binding bilateral agreement for the ongoing presence of its forces in Iraq whose UN mandate expires on December 31.'

Then Chalabi sat there while Larijani warned the US against "adventurism."

I don't think Chalabi likes the US very much. What is he doing discussing a bilateral US-Iraqi agreement with Larijani in Tehran? And let's see, I'm trying to remember whose idea it was for the US public to give Chalabi tens of millions of dollars and to try to put him in power in Baghdad . . .

Oh, yeah, thanks to Amanda Terkel for reminding me . . . it was our very own Mr. Foreign Policy Experience (a.k.a 'one is born every minute' . . .):

'McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that blocked increased funding for the Chalabi’s group. Also that year, McCain said of Chalabi, “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.”'

McCain's love affair with Chalabi goes back further than that:

In 1998, McCain was one of the sponsors of the Iraq Liberation Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which officially changed American policy from containing Hussein to deposing him, and he became a leading figure in the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a lobbying group founded by Randy Scheunemann, who is now his chief foreign policy adviser. McCain met with Ahmad Chalabi, the smooth Iraqi dissident who was a favorite of the neocons, and supported him publicly.

The late 1990s were a fairly easy period of black and white in foreign policy--there was no Putin, there was no resurgent Russia, and China was no where near the presence that it is now. The United States was prosperous and secure enough to fall into the ridiculous distraction of blowjobs and blue dresses during that period because all of the tin horn dictators were in their place. And when it came time to exercise judgement on one of the biggest issues of the day, McCain got it wrong.
McCain was responsible for helping pour millions into Chalabi's group--all of it for naught.

In 1998, he was among the cosponsors of the Iraq Liberation Act. The law set "regime change" in Baghdad as U.S. policy and mandated support to opposition groups seeking to overthrow the dictator.

Among the major beneficiaries was the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

The CIA had initially sponsored the group but broke with the controversial leader in 1997, saying he could not be trusted. Under the new law, Chalabi's group received almost $33 million from the State Department, until U.S. officials found financial improprieties and ended the arrangement.

McCain and Chalabi met several times but were not close allies, aides to both men said. "Sen. McCain wasn't pushing one group over another," said Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor.

Back in 1998, only a handful of people could claim to have been prescient in seeing where all of this was headed, and John McCain certainly wasn't one of them. In fact, props to Ron Paul, of all people, for seeing into the future. It's too bad Ron Paul is barking mad on most other issues--this little chestnut is brilliant, though:

So back to the practicality of the bill. Even though one might argue there is a lot of good intentions here, even a Member that is supporting the bill is very uncertain whether it is workable.

In some ways, even if it is workable, it is going to be working against us and working against the United States and working against the taxpayers of this country.

But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.

So we are talking about killing Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator. But how many ruthless dictators do we have? We have plenty. So how many more should we go after?

So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us.

McCain was against breaking down the effectiveness of the US military before he was for it--see if you can read this speech and not have your jaw hit the floor. I wish the Obama people would reprint this in full on their website and start hammering McCain for it.

Sen. John McCain told veterans Wednesday [August, 1999] that U.S. military forces are "perilously close to the breaking point" because of declining defense budgets.

"Almost 100,000 Americans are serving overseas in an unprecedented number of contingency, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations," the Arizona Republican said at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

McCain criticized both the Clinton administration and Congress on defense issues and also picked up a presidential endorsement from Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

In a 25-minute speech focusing on security, veterans issues, military readiness and China policy, McCain criticized Congress for failing to close defense bases and said Kosovo shouldn't be a model for future military challenges.

Afterward, he was endorsed for the Republican presidential nomination by Thompson, who was introduced as McCain's national cochairman. Thompson originally backed former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, who dropped out of the GOP presidential race Monday.

"When it comes to reforming the way Washington does business, John McCain is a leader," Thompson said. "In his personal courage and integrity, John McCain has shown characteristics of leadership like nobody I've ever seen."

In his speech, McCain, a Navy fighter pilot during the Vietnam War who spent nearly six years as a prisoner of war, said some military units were unfit for deployment because of recruiting and retention problems.

"After six years of severely underfunding the military, the president reversed himself and proposed increasing the defense budget," McCain said. "Once again, however, his rhetoric far exceeded his actions."

Clinton addressed the convention Monday and called for VFW support to push Congress for full support of his foreign policy.

McCain said the United States should encourage political change in China and Clinton should "change its failed policy of pressuring only Taiwan to avoid open hostilities."

McCain, who received a standing ovation from VFW delegates at the end of his speech, called for a veterans' bill of rights.

"Many of the promises of benefits that were made or implied to active duty personnel and to us veterans have been ignored, changed or abandoned over the years," he said. "This primarily is true in the area of veterans' health-care benefits."

I love the irony of that article--especially the warm endorsement of Fred Thompson, which has always been worth about a wooden nickel. What happened to that John McCain?
How bad is it when the likes of Ron Paul have demonstrated a better grasp of foreign policy and national defense than you have?

How is it that John McCain has this reputation for foreign policy acumen when, going back ten years or more, he's gotten everything wrong? He's the ultimate wingnut, completely escaping accountability for all of his mistakes and blunders.

Deadbeat McCains Forgot to Pay Taxes on Oceanfront Condo

Newsweek is all over this--how did it get missed by the media? Oh, wait! They're involved in a massive lip-locking mancrush the likes of which have never been seen before!

When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.

San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain's trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."

Dan McAllister, treasurer- tax collector for San Diego County, said that about 3 percent of San Diego's approximately 1 million property owners default on their property taxes each year. The county assesses a 1.5 percent penalty for each month that goes by unpaid and puts houses up for sale after five years. "We do hear an awful lot of excuses for why people don't pay," McAllister said. "Under the law, the property owner is responsible for keeping the address current. We're only as good as the information we are given."

Fair enough, but if you're going to run for President of the United States of America, and if you can't pay taxes on all seven of the homes you own while you steadfastly try to convince everyone you're a good guy, you should probably fire the idiot that let this one get away. This is San Diego freaking County--basically, as close to McCain country as anyone is ever going to get, even more so than Orange County, to be sure. And no one in the county government thought to clean this up on behalf of McCain? As in, step on his foot and make it go away before Iowa and New Hampshire?

And how's that Karl Rove trick about making Obama look like the elitist going? You know, so many people can relate to the McCains. Just last week, I'll bet you a lot of them were deciding between buying gas or buying food and they said to themselves, "damn! I forgot to pay taxes on my condo in La Jolla!"

--WS

I think I've mastered time travel

That is the only explanation, because I could swear I woke up in 2004 this morning.

Either that or John W. McBu$h has taken a particularly odious page out of aWol's 2004 campaign and started the campaign for the general with a stacked town-hall audience. As the indispensable Oliver Willis noted the McCain campaign went to New York City, the most diverse city in the country - perhaps the world - and couldn't find any minorities willing to attend.

Or so it seemed at first.


Toward the end of the broadcast, Shepard Smith revealed that the McCain campaign had put the shoe on the other foot and misled Faux Noise, which usually just misleads the populace...

“I reported at the top of this hour that the campaign had told us at Fox News that the audience would be made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents," Smith said. "We have now received a clarification from the campaign and I feel I should pass it along to you. The McCain campaign distributed tickets to supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, who of course is a registered Republican, and other independent groups.”


He really is running for a third bu$h term! He is even reprising the 2004 campaign, right down to the most odious campaign methods! How long will it be before his campaign vets attendance and only lets the sycophants who will sign a loyalty oath in to attend McSame events?

The long, hot summer is underway

John McCain gave a speech on nuclear proliferation today at the University of Denver and was heckled by protesters of the Iraq war. (Video below the jump)

He was interrupted three times.

His support of a hugely unpopular war, coupled with his fealty to a feckless, officious, draft-dodging, coke-snorting deserter who punked him hard in 2000 is hanging around his skinny, aged wattle and even the media can't, tho they try with all their might, foist him upon us.

We hate this war, and we hate George Bush and John McCain is too closely allied with both, and he is, inexplicably, on the wrong side of veterans issues.

And then there is the fact that he is either senile of deliberately lying his ass off about efforts to stop the spread of nuclear armaments.

“Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven’t tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades.”

Say what?

They didn't get anywhere with North Korea until the let Christopher Hill go to Pyongyang and start talking.

And I have no idea where he got the notion that we have "tried to talk to" Iran! We have not had diplomatic relations with Iran since April of 1980!

Now, I could deconstruct his speech, but I don't have to. Jon Woflsthal, an actual non-proliferation expert (I'm just a cold war Brat) already has, and he did a better job than I could.

John McCain’s speech on nuclear weapons seems to adopt the narrowest of lenses in dealing with nuclear weapons. Moreover, his proposals – many of which might sound good – don’t match up with other things he has said on nuclear weapons, on Russia, on Iran and suggests he doesn’t really get the complexity of these issues. Lastly, the tone may be better, but many of the proposals—not to mention his language choices—are right out of George W. Bush’s play book. This may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but it is still a wolf.

1. He wants to work with Russia on arms control and tactical nuclear weapons, but he also wants to kick Russia out of the G-8. Not sure how you get them to play nice on nukes after you kick them in the teeth. Also, Bush adopted a loose standard on counting nuclear weapons and verification. Will McCain (who is now working with John Bolton – father of Bush arms control dogma) be any better?
2. I applaud his desire to get tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe, but if we pull nuclear weapons out of Turkey as Iran advances its nuclear program, they are not going to have increased confidence in NATO and the US. This speech, and the references to it, will send shock waves through Europe and and a McCain Administration would start in a hole.
3. He does not walk away from the new “reliable replacement warhead” being pitched by the Bush administration. Lots of wiggle room for him, left there on purpose, I would guess.
4. Why is only the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) going to review nuclear policy? Where are the experts on nonproliferation, diplomacy, history, etc? This is the same line the Bush administration gave. In May of 2000, standing in front of Secretary Kissinger and other republican heavy-weights, then-candidate Bush said he would reduce nuclear weapons to the lowest number consistent with U.S. security. Sound familiar? McCain’s statement is almost an exact quote. The JCS has set the current floor on reductions. The President sets the war guidance for the level of nuclear weapons, and leaving it to the JCS is a recipe for the status quo.
5. Did anyone else notice that McCain did not repudiate the policy of regime change? I know why Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons. Reducing ours will not get them to change their course. Of course, singing “bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann” won’t do it either. Is McCain really suggesting cutting our nukes will lead others to reduce theirs? It’s the broader policy that needs changing, not just the number of nukes.
6. Coming out of left field (or from pander-ville) is the remark about international nuclear storage. It is possible that Russia might build a storage facility for countries in East Asia, but McCain seems to be suggesting some other country is going to accept our huge (the world’s largest) stock of spent fuel and that this might be a way to avoid opening the spent fuel repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Talk about pandering. Who does he think is going to take our nuclear waste? Even if someone would take it off our hands, the stuff contains about 100,000 weapons worth of plutonium that must be dealt with. Does McCain really want to export that to a country poor enough to want into the nuclear waste storage business?
7. Either you are for the ban on nuclear testing or you are not. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the most studied arms control agreement in history. It has been verifiable since the 1960s. McCain voted against it. To play the “let’s study it again” dance is too cute by half. If the President does not support it, it is not going to happen. Also, McCain seems to be suggesting we should re-open the agreement for new modifications. That is the fastest way to kill it. He also talks about limiting testing. We want to ban testing. We have more nuclear expertise than anyone – why we would want to make the world safe for others to test nuclear weapons is unclear. Obama and Clinton have said they are for the CTBT and plan to fight for its ratification. McCain has not. The rest of the world – including the states we need on our side to deal with Iran and North Korea – are embarrassed that we have not ratified it.

McCain’s speech is a feeble attempt to try to tie all Republicans and Democrats into the failures of the Bush administration nuclear policies. Before 2000, the US was on the right track. The regime needed work, but was sound – more states had given up nuclear weapons and weapon programs in the 1980s and 90s than had begun them. Now that track record lies in ashes – because of the Bush Administration approach, backed by a Republican Congress that killed the CTBT and sought to restrict funding for nuclear security efforts during 2000-2004. McCain is promising more of the same.

I admit that what I heard sent me to the same place - his speech was an attempt to spread the malicious, craven disregard for policy and process that define this administration over every administration from the advent of the cold war forward!

If he is lacking cognitive ability to process and analyze the reality, that is bad enough. If he is deliberately lying, that is worse. And can I just say that the spectacle of McCain, floundering desperately, is heartbreaking. I don't think I have winced this much in 20 years - since I watched my late grandfather trying to get the VCR to stop flashing 12:00.

Here is that video I promised. If this is what is in store for him on a regular basis, his famous temper is going to erupt sooner or later...probably sooner.

McCain and the Media Mancrush: Revisited

I first thought it had to be a typo...they had to have meant to say "blow up" because there is no way that John "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McSame manages a "blowout" - didn't they?

Sadly, no.

The Politico - never known for keeping the mask in place anyway - actually gives an anonymous - so they can speak freely, you understand - source 'within the republican party' the chance to assert facts not in evidence, specifically that McSame could manage a 40 to 50 electoral vote blowout in November, and the stenographer dutifully scribed it down and let that be the lede in a two page article, before getting to strategists and pollsters who will actually allow their names to be attached to their quotes who are - shall we say - more cautious about their optimism. “There is a one in four shot that McCain can win an electoral majority in excess of 50 electoral votes, which by most recent standards would be a blowout,” Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said. “Considering where the Republican brand is right now, that’s pretty phenomenal.”

One in four? Really? I'm skeptical.


In electoral-rich California, Obama would defeat McCain by seven points if the election were held today. This is significant because less than four months ago Obama lost the state to Clinton in the primary. The latest KTLA/Times poll shows a bleak landscape for McCain in the Golden State, where he has vowed to compete heavily, thinking he had a shot there because of the military presence.

But his reluctance to back SB 22, Senator Webb's 21st Century G.I. Bill legislation has drawn fire from veterans groups, from the American Legion to VoteVets, IVAW to Veterans for Peace. Even the Military Officers Association of America has taken a shot across his bow and told him thanks just the same, but they are in no mood to be lectured about retention rates.

Then there are the lobbyist problems. He has those in trump, and damned if they don't sully the "maverick" image. (By the way, I have long thought that there was a Ford joke in there somewhere - the Maverick was not a cool ride, it was in the same class as the Pinto...You guys are witty as hell - get on that, would ya? Leave 'em in comments.)

And on his home turf, in Phoenix, a fundraiser and joint appearance with the current occupant had to be moved from the Phoenix Convention Centerto to private residences in the Phoenix area, due to anemic ticket sales and the fear that anti-war protesters outside the convention center would outnumber attendees. (h/t Nicole Belle at C&L)

So yeah, I totally get where Davic Paul Kuhn was coming from with his thousand-word mash-note to the recipient of the media mancrush.....Totally.....Of course, when McCain manages that blowout, I will be seeking medical attention - for the plague of monkeys that will be flying out of my butt.

Another wheel comes off the "Straight Talk Express"

Another day, and other departure over lobbying entanglements. (link goes to the Politico so prep yourself for spin if you click over.)

Ya know, for a guy who said his lobbyist connections were different, honorable even, he sure has had to chuck a whole bunch of 'em for conflicts of interest and specious activities, hasn't he?

Former Rep. Thomas G. Loeffler, a Texan who is among the McCain campaign’s most important advisers and fundraisers, has resigned as a national co-chair over lobbying entanglements, a Republican source told Politico on Sunday.

It’s at least the fifth lobbying-related departure from the campaign in a week.

The McCain campaign, already facing the prospect of being badly outgunned in the general election, now also must cope with the disruption of the lobbying shakeout.

After last weeks mini-scandal surrounding Charlie Goodyear and his resignation over conflict of interest for his involvement with a 527, the McCain campaign instituted a "Caesar's Wife" type of policy for campaign staffers and fundraisers as part of a re-vetting effort by the campaign.

“No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity,” the policy says.

Officials say Loeffler’s resignation shows that McCain and his campaign is going to be serious about enforcing the policy, which was implemented following revelations about the lobbying ties of several campaign officials.

“Everyone will have to become compliant with the policy or they'll have to make a similar choice,” a campaign official said on condition of anonymity. “But we're not going to discuss every person affected.”

The officials who have left include Doug Goodyear, who was McCain’s top liaison to the Republican National Convention; Doug Davenport, regional campaign manager for mid-Atlantic states; Eric Burgeson, an energy policy adviser; and Craig Shirley, a prominent Republican consultant who was a member of McCain’s Virginia Leadership Team.

Loeffler was part of the rescue mission for the campaign last year after its spending badly outstripped its fundraising, leading to a contraction of the campaign that left McCain running a bare-bones operation in the lead-up to his breakout New Hampshire primary victory.

Loeffler’s departure followed a report this weekend by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff that Loeffler’s “lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts.”

So I wonder how many staffers will have to depart before McCain realizes he took a stand that places him on the horns of a dilemma?

Personally, I am enjoying watching the stupid unfold and hope the bleeding doesn't stop, because I want McCain to be compromised and despised and lose in a landslide because I think a McCain presidency would threaten the republic. In fact, I hope the campaign stays distracted until June 3 - and if Charlie Black stays in the mix, there is a good chance of that.

Thursday morning quick hits

What'll ya bet this gets made into a big damn deal, but McCain can berate young people, and all we heard were ***crickets***. Barack Obama has a habit of calling people "Sweetie" and has slipped up and done so a couple of times on the campaign trail. Most recently, at a campaign rally in Michigan, a female reporter shouted a question to him and he responded by saying "Hold on one second, sweetie." Later he called her answering machine and apologized for not answering her question and explained that he has a bad habit of calling people "sweetie" and added "I mean no disrespect, so I am duly chastened on that front."

Okay. Fine. No offense taken. Not by anyone with any sense anyway. But there have been instances recently where the media should have gotten their feathers in a ruffle over and they were pretty much laughed off. Both involved John McCain and young people and young voters. First was the incident when, asked about his age he called the kid asking the question a "little jerk" then added "you're drafted."

Just this month, when a 14-year-old girl asked him a substantive question about his missed vote and expressed opposition to the "Ledbetter fair pay act" - which he failed to vote on - he berated her. “If you eliminate the statutes of limitations, and you make it unending, you may be violating the rights of the individuals who are being sued, whether they’re a man or a woman,” the senator responded. “I don’t think you’re doing anything to help the rights of women, except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession.”

Yes, if McCain doesn't defend the glass ceiling, who will? Hmmm? And of course his answer is bullshit, of the undistilled variety. The law McCain failed to vote on and didn't support anyway would have given people who are discriminated against and unfairly compensated for their labor the opportunity to petition the courts for redress. As it stands now, with out courts packed full of sycophants with an overblown sense of corporate fealty, if a person who is underpaid (usually a woman or a minority) has a mere 180 days to sue - but most people don't even know they are being underpaid in such a timely manner, so they are just SoL.

But Barack Obama called someone "Sweetie" so I am sure that will be the anti-woman flavor of the week.

Oh this is rich! Speaking to the Israeli Parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel, the American president, a grandson of Nazi-appeasers and at least one overt collaborator - compared Democrats to Nazi appeasers. The mind boggles. “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,” he said - apparently with a straight face - completely forgetting that exercising the Trading With the Enemy Act was even necessary because his grandfather was Hitler's banker, and continued to do business with him for eleven months after Germany declared war on his country! The money Prescott made collaborating with Nazis was used to bankroll the Bush families Texas oil ventures, and the rest, as they say, is history. Some of us, like my esteemed co-blogger, actually opened the book when we took the classes, so we know this stuff that evades Der Chimpenfuhrer.

Petulance alert! The marketing wizard who is charged with selling us an Apple III this November doesn't like it one little bit when the press doesn't fawn all over his loser candidate and kiss his wrinkly old ass. Newsweek had the temerity to attempt to practice journalism recently and highlight some of the tactics the GOP might use this fall against the Democratic nominee. Mark Salter, McCain's pit-bull, got pissed at the prospect that the Media Mancrush might be waning. Over the weekend, he fired off a three-page email to the editor of Newsweek slamming the newsmagazine for what he said was a "biased" cover story on Sen. Obama that "framed this race exactly as Sen. Obama wants it to be framed." He threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus and airplane, according to people familiar with the matter.

Wouldn't it have been great if Newsweek just recalled their reporters from the bus and said "Okay, fine." Then the next week, if they had run a cover story about being denied access and explaining that they would just not be covering McCain under those circumstances? Ah, integrity...it used to mean something...But now? Not so much.

Is Cohen back from the Village?

In Greek mythology, as Odysseus is returning home after the Trojan War, he and his men land on the island of the Lotus Eaters and fall under the narcotic-like spell of the Lotus, losing their focus and desire to even return home, caring only about sleeping and eating more Lotus. Odysseus realizes what is happening, and props his eyes open with wood splinters and drags his men back to the ship, where he ties them to the rudder benches to keep them from swimming back to the island.

I feel like our M$M has eaten the lotus flowers offered by John McCain and fallen under his spell, unquestioning and compliant, meekly extending a paper plate at a barbecue and asking "please sir, may I have some more?"

So you could have knocked me over with a feather when I donned my full-body condom and headed over to read Richard Cohen today, and found that he appears to have pried his eyes open and offered some honesty and an almost-apology for eight years of media fealty.

In 2000, I boarded John McCain's campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express, and, in a metaphorical sense, never got off. Here, truly, was something new under the political sun -- a politician who bristled with integrity and seemed to have nothing to hide. I continue to admire McCain for those and other reasons, but the bus I once rode has gone wobbly. Recently, it veered into the mud.

A reprentative of the M$M admitting he has been in the tank for the republican nominee for the last eight years? This should be on the FRONT PAGE, rather than A15.

I have in mind McCain's charge that Barack Obama is the favored presidential candidate of Hamas. The citation for this remark is the statement of Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas political adviser, who said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." Yousef likened Obama to John F. Kennedy and said that Obama "has a vision to change America" and with it the world. Yousef apparently got so carried away that he forgot that Obama has repeatedly called Hamas a "terrorist organization."

McCain seems to have forgotten that, too. His campaign has sent out an e-mail showing how guilt by association really works. "Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders," it said. The message went on to claim that Obama's foreign policy positions have earned him "kind words" from Hamas.

Never mind that this was the sort of campaigning that McCain vowed to eschew. More to the point is what McCain said in his own defense. Not only was Yousef's praise of Obama "a legitimate point of discussion," he said, but everyone should understand that McCain himself will be "Hamas's worst nightmare." This aspect of McCain is my worst nightmare.

WHAAA??? Someone check Richard's vitals. He is bordering on journalistic integrity here and is liable to have an allergic reaction of anaphylactic proportions. Someone at the WaPo better have an EpiPen at the ready.

But it gets better! He actually raises a valid point! (I know! My jaw hit the floor too!)

At 71, McCain would be the oldest man ever elected president, and so age has to be a consideration. My concern for the moment, though, is not McCain's physical age but his intellectual age -- his willingness to revise his views and grapple with the new. Thus far, he has shown scant desire to do any of that.

Some of us have been saying this so long and so frequently that we sound like a broken record. Good to see our theme being championed by the M$M.

He's been running around the country costumed as a George W. Bush conservative. McCain's tax plan is a joke, and his foreign policy is frightening.

About time someone said it out loud through a big microphone.

When McCain says that he would be Hamas's worst nightmare, what in the world is he talking about? Almost on a daily basis, Hamas launches rockets into southern Israel, occasionally killing some poor soul. The latest victim was a woman of about 70 who was killed yesterday. Israel usually retaliates, and Palestinians -- some of them just as innocent as the Israeli victim -- are killed. You would think that Israel would be Hamas's worst nightmare, but aside from the occasional -- and fruitless -- retaliatory raid, it cannot figure out how to stop Hamas's deadly activities. What would McCain do that Israel has not?

Count me among those American Jews who would like an answer to that question, too. Be specific, and show your work.

McCain supports the Iraq war. But Iraq is still a mess. Iran has gained influence there and elsewhere in the region. Syria and Iran together have made Hezbollah, another terrorist organization, an important, if not dominant, factor in Lebanon. What would McCain do about this? Would he bomb Hezbollah? Israel has already done that. Would he occupy southern Lebanon? Israel has done that, too. Has he noticed that all this military force has accomplished next to nothing? What are the particulars of the nightmare he has in mind for a good chunk of the Middle East?

See my response to the paragraph above, about wanting an answer and showing the work.

I hate to say it, but Yousef has a point. The Middle East desperately needs supple minds that are not mired in the past. I look at Gaza and don't know what to do. I have supported Israel in its policies there, but I have to admit that nothing has been gained from the non-recognition of Hamas. War doesn't work. Isolation doesn't work. For Israel, leaving Gaza didn't work, and, surely, McCain's threat to Hamas will not give it a headache -- a belly laugh is more like it.

No kidding. No one is without sin in the middle east mess, including the Bush administration that pushed for elections that Hamas won handily. Everyone seems all too willing to "forget" about that part, and it brings to mind an old saw about having ones cake and eating it, too.

The most admirable of McCain's qualities -- his life story, his integrity -- make him particularly well suited to accomplish the next president's primary task, restoring the American people's trust in their government. But ideas matter, and on the Middle East, McCain not only has little to say that is interesting but, in his swipe at Obama, a distinctly ugly way of saying it.

Richard isn't ready quite yet to scrutinize the life story (the five lost planes, and the piss-poor performance at the academy that would have made any other cadet or junior officer a washout but McCain had two generations of Admirals smoothing the bumps along his path) and the integrity (Keating Five, lobbyist connections, adultery) but he does seem to be showing signs of rubbing the sleep from his eyes and making his way out of the pack.

Don't get me wrong - he is still one of the biggest idiots in the Village, but for now he seems to be showing signs of shaking off the media mancrush. We aren't holding our breath for a "come to Jesus" moment (yeah, if I wasn't a Jew I would go to hell for that metaphor) but we are hopeful that his condition is treatable.

Arizona Republic: McCain isn't so mavericky after all

That was the conclusion the largest paper in the state came to when it analyzed senate records and McCain's voting patterns:

The voting pattern seems at odds with the popular narrative that McCain's maverick tendencies make him an unreliable conservative.

"He is a conservative who votes conservative on most issues," said Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. "By no means is he a liberal or even a moderate."

Poole, who compiles a widely respected analysis of all Senate votes, ranks McCain as slightly less conservative than most Republicans throughout his career and near the far edge of the right while running for president.

During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes. He did so just once in the four years he was running for president: 1999, 2000, 2007 and 2008. All 12 of the close votes he missed happened in those years, too.

Even so, in 59 of the 82 close votes, Republicans got what they wanted regardless of McCain's position. In those 59 cases, McCain broke with his party 16 times.

So basically, it boils down to this: McCain will say anything to get elected, and strike a mavericky pose when he can do so without risk to the republican agenda.

At least the paper that knows him best isn't all gooey in the grips of the media mancrush.

Would McCain reprise the Cold War?

That is a justified fear when he makes pronouncements like he would like to kick Russia out of the G-8. It didn't get much notice when he made his sweeping foreign policy speech in March - perhaps because of the media mancrush that we have been diligently documenting - but this is definitely worth examination. Not because he could actually do it - the United States is only one of eight member nations, as the name indicates, and the other seven would not go for it - but because such a position would further alienate the few allies we have left.

The Group of Eight, or G-8, as it's popularly known, makes decisions by consensus, so no single nation can kick out another. Most experts say the six other countries — Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Canada — would never agree to toss Russia, given their close economic ties to their neighbor. A senior U.S. official who deals with Russia policy said that even Moscow would have to approve of its own ouster, given how the G-8 works.

"It's not even a theoretical discussion. It's an impossible discussion," said the senior official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. "It's just a dumb thing."

Aside from that, many wonder whether McCain's suggestion would be wise policy. They fear that if McCain is elected and follows through on an attempt to toss Russia from the group, it could anger and isolate Russia, which has been increasingly assertive on the world stage, autocratic within its borders and is the second-largest producer of the hydrocarbons that feed the world's energy needs.

"In Europe, there's very little support ... for a policy like that," said Stephen Larrabee, an expert on Europe and Russia at the RAND think tank. "It's too late in the game to try and oust Russia."

The proposal also seemed at odds with the theme of McCain's speech, which promised a less unilateral approach to world affairs than the Bush White House has pursued. That could reflect tension between two Republican foreign-policy camps vying for influence in McCain's campaign: the pragmatic realists and the hard-line neo-conservatives — with the neo-cons ascendant for now in Russia policy.

"There are a lot of important issues that we need Russia's support on. ...What's to be gained by tossing Russia out? We feel more self-righteous about ourselves?" said Andrew Kuchins, the director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a center-right think tank.

Let's call this idiocy what it is...the crankery of a backward-thinking cold-war codger, unable to turn around and embrace the future so he cleaves to the comfort of the known, i.e. the past.

And here is all you need to know about just how stupid this idea really is...Heritage wankers think it's a splendid notion....and when was the last time those chuckleheads were right about any damned thing?

Hilarious...

When a man can't walk the streets of an American city, you know there's something wrong....

A real man would have insisted that his WIFE wear the flak vest, but oh well...

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

I was totally fooled! I thought it was real!

See here for the whole story:

http://jesswundrun.blogspot.com/2008/04/john-mccain-toured-new-orleans.html

Well, that's the magic of photoshop!

Noted Without Much Comment

Another McCain Media Mancrush Moment - screenshot edition:

From MSNBC.com at 11:30PM (Eastern)



Tell me again how it is that the guy who uses his wife's private jet is able to call the guy who graduated from Harvard and could have had damned near any job he wanted but chose to go organize on the South side of Chicago "insensitive to the poor." How does that work? Oh, right! The media has a mancrush. I get it now...

Brilliant campaign strategy there John!

John McCain chose to stand in front of a shuttered factory in Ohio to tell voters to "reject protectionism" and then went on to draw parallels with the regions economic woes and his own electoral fortunes.

"A person learns along the way that if you hold on — if you don't quit no matter what the odds — sometimes life will surprise you," McCain said in a speech at Youngstown State University after meeting the five remaining workers at Fabart, a steel-fabricating factory that had more than 100 employees a few years ago.

Continuing a weeklong tour of what he calls the "forgotten America," McCain called for the increased use of community colleges to retrain workers and investment in alternative energy technologies to replace the manufacturing jobs that have gone overseas as free trade agreements made it easier for companies to move to where production is cheaper.

"The American Midwest is more than a rust belt, and its economy is more than the sum of past hardships," McCain said, while acknowledging that a comeback "won't be easy."

Apparently, he said this with a straight face. In Youngstown, Ohio. In front of a shuttered factory that used to support families and afforded college educations for the regions children and good-paying union jobs for the residents.

How churlish to make the false-equivalency he made - as if his personal experience with winning the republican nomination in a year when the republican brand is toxic is comparable to the economic malaise that free-trade has brought to the rust-belt.

But the M$M has their mancrush mojo working - they will spin it not as stupid, but as straight talk. Proof that the ultimate insider is a "maverick" and courageous enough to say the stupidest shit imaginable and mean it speak hard truths.

Now, just for fun, lets play a round of "If a Democrat said that..."

If a Democrat said that, the talking heads of Faux Noise would set up a howl like none ever heard before. It would be proof positive that the Democrat was out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans, and really, it is just more proof - as if that was needed - that Democrats are unfit to serve in any capacity, they just don't get it. They would maintain that we are all latte-swilling elites who draw salaries and don't understand what hourly wage workers deal with...you know that's how it would play out. You just fuckin' know it...

Leave your own thoughts on "if a Democrat said that..." in comments...

Times are too precarious to risk an American Kruschev

With our country standing on a precipice, with our national standing at it's nadir point; the temperament of those standing before us, asking us to elect them to the nations highest office is not merely a legitimate concern, it is an issue of paramount importance.

Put bluntly - John McCain has temper issues that raise serious questions about his fitness to serve as the president and commander in chief of this countries armed services. I don't think it would be a wise move to elect a man to the presidency who hurls "fuck you's" at other senators, and who blows up at his wife and calls her a "cunt."

In fact, it can truthfully be said that McCain started his Senate career with a temper tantrum.

On election night 1986, the election that elevated him from a seat in the House to the Senate seat he still holds, he publicly raged at and berated a young Republican campaign volunteer, screaming in his face and poking him in the chest in a crowded ballroom. What offense had he committed to warrant such public abuse and humiliation? He had set up the podium from which McCain made his victory speech - but the podium was a little bit too tall, and the 5'9" McCain looked, on teevee, like he is 5'9" instead of towering and heroic.

John Hinz was the head of the Arizona state GOP at the time and he was offended by the outburst. "Here this poor guy is thinking he's done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn't look good on television," Hinz said when interviewed about the incident in 2000 when McCain lost the GOP nomination to Bush. Hinz went on to say that the incident was so over the top that it troubled him for years. "There were an awful lot of people in the room, and you would have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn't right and I was very upset at him."

Keep in mind, that is the executive director of the state party, speaking about a candidate who had just secured a seat in the United States Senate.

In 1995, McCain and Strom Thurmond got into a shoving match on the floor of the Senate. Thurmond interrupted an opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee by McCain, asking "is the Senator about through?" McCain thanked him for his courtesy (translation: "Get bent") and continued on (it should be noted here that McCain despises longwindedness in others and lets his impatience be known, in many rude and unsubtle ways.) Later, he accosted the elderly Thurmond on the floor and a scuffle ensued, although no punches were thrown. As The Washingtonian noted, the two "did not part friends."

When McCain ran for the republican nomination in 2000, the republicans enjoyed a 55-45 majority in the Senate. Of those 55 republican Senators, only four supported their colleague's bid for the nomination, most of the rest openly supported the candidacy of George W. Bush, who went on to win the nomination.

Why would McCain's fellow Senators be so reluctant to support their comrade?

Maybe because he's a prick?

He has accosted and attacked and accused many of them of wrongdoing, and basically acted like he alone has the market cornered on honor. He has it all and no one else can have any. There just isn't a square to spare.

He has exploded in anger at many of them, and alienated them in the process. He openly and publicly called Pete Domenici an "asshole" and Charles Grassley a "fucking jerk" when they had the temerity to advocate positions that McCain didn't agree with. After the Domenici "asshole" incident, one republican Senator who had thought about supporting his presidential bid, telling NEWSWEEK at the time "I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger." [emphasis mine]

And here is an interesting opening sentence from the third paragraph from that 2000 NEWSWEEK article...even back then, the media mancrush was apparent...McCain has avoided harsh media scrutiny, and some senators are just plain jealous of his friendly relations with reporters. "He says things that would get us [negative] headlines, but he gets a freebie," groused one lawmaker.

The Arizona Republic has made an issue of his temper for years, reporting on his volatility and the wrath he has unleashed on the states political leaders for years. In fact, the largest daily paper in Arizona was blunt about addressing the issue of McCain's temper in a 1999 editorial when it wrote "If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona. There is also reason to seriously question whether he has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States." [emphasis mine]

I believe that the issue of temperament is going to be of paramount importance. We, as a nation, have a lot of hard work ahead of us, and the next president is going to need to have patience and diligence and not be a reactionary jackass.

The last thing we need is Nikita McCain banging his shoe on the desk and vowing revenge on our "enemies."