I completely agree with Pat Buchanan? Well, at least in THIS ARTICLE.

If you watched last night's CNN Presidential Forum with Pastor Rick Warren, you know that the two Presidential Candidates were interviewed separately. Barack Obama went first, followed by John McCain. Now to ensure a level playing field, Pastor Warren said this:

NOW WHAT I'VE DECIDED IS TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPARISON I'M GOING TO ASK IDENTICAL QUESTIONS TO EACH OF THESE CANDIDATES SO YOU CAN COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. NOW SENATOR OBAMA IS GOING TO GO FIRST. WE FLIPPED A COIN. AND WE HAVE SAFELY PLACED SENATOR MCCAIN IN A CONE OF SILENCE.

This fact was even backed up when McCain took the stage and was asked by Warren, "Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?" To which McCain answed, "I was trying to hear through the wall." The audience laughed, but everyone (including myself) believed that McCain was indeed sequestered for Obama's 60-minute interview.

Turns out, not even close. In fact, McCain was not in the building during the first half of the Obama interview, and arrived via motorcade well into the proceedings. This of course means that McCain could have had access to a program carried on all three over-the-air networks, cable news networks and various radio stations.

But that might not even matter. You see, near the halfway point of the interview with McCain, he's asked about defining marriage between a man & woman. Then there's this exchange:

McCain: Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices?
Warren: We'll get to that.
McCain: All right. Okay
Warren: You got all my questions? Good.

So now he's implying McCain got all the questions in advance? So why deal with the whole "Cone of Silence" bullshit? This also draws attention to John McCain's ability to answer a three-part question on education (asked earlier to Obama) without even hearing the complete query. First, the question to Obama:

Warren: 80 percent of Americans recent poll said they believe in merit pay for teachers. Do you? I'm not asking do you think all teachers should get a raise. Do you think better teachers should be paid better? They should be paid more than poor teachers?

Now let's take a look at the transcript from McCain's interview. Notice how he "magically" answers the three parts without hearing them:

Warren: About 80 percent of America says they support merit pay for the best teachers. Now I don't want to hear your stump speech on education - -
McCain: Yes. Yes. And find bad teachers another line of work.

Does anyone else find this highly odd?

Here's Pastor Warren being asked about McCain and his sequestering. Pay close attention to the 2:50 mark:

First off, he'd only have to ask McCain if he'd heard any of the discussion - as it's kinda hard for Obama to start the program and spy. But a bigger question is if Pastor Rick did indeed ask McCain upon arriving if he'd heard anything, then why start his interview by repeating the "Cone of Silence" line? Wouldn't that be a moment for full disclosure to the American People about McCain's late arrival to the venue?

A few days ago, I knew very little about the Russia/Georgia conflict other than what I saw on the television. In short: Georgia = Good, Russia = Bad. It seemed that Russia had launched an unprovoked attack on the tiny country of Georgia. This was further cemented by John McCain's words admonishing Russia, and proclaiming to the world, "We are all Georgians". I would guess it seemed that way to Fox News as well, which is why they were more than happy to book two eyewitnesses to the war there. However, when their first-hand account doesn't seem to match the McCain/Fox News angle - "Operation Cut to Commercial" commences:

Wait a minute? So Georgia was attacking South Ossetia first? Yep, In fact, one Op/Ed piece makes the argument that "the vast majority of the 2,000 civilians allegedly killed so far in this conflict were South Ossetians killed by Georgian shells, rockets and bombs." So why is this fact going unreported in the U.S.? And why did this happen during a press conference with Condoleeza Rice?

Is there a concerted effort to remove any sort of perspective from this situation? For anyone who's interested, here's a timeline of the current conflict via Wikipedia.

No matter what the exact truth is, it's not quite the black & white scenario that McCain is selling.

John McCain doesn't want this election to be about age. I mean, after all, if McCain were to be elected President he would be three years older than Ronald Reagan (the oldest President ever) was when he took office in 1980. McCain will celebrate his 72nd birthday just a few days before the Republican National Convention - and seems to feel he's robust enough to take on a job like President for four years. So why is he so ageist about the Supreme Court Justices?

A few days ago, when McCain wanted to underline the importance of bringing conservative justices to the Supreme Court, he said this:

"There's going to be two, maybe three vacancies on the Supreme Court, according to people that decide these things. People that pay close attention."

He gave a similar response tonight in his discussions with Pastor Rick Warren. But the real question here is, "Can John McCain predict the future?"

You see, Supreme Court Justices get lifetime appointments. That means that they serve until they choose to retire, or die. And without any indications from the current justices about retirement, are John McCain (or these unknown "people" he speaks of) predicting death for two (or more) Justices?

Of the nine current Justices, only one (John Paul Stevens) is in his 80's. The rest are 75, 72, 72, 70, 68, 60, 58 and 53. With this in mind, is it really acceptable for McCain to question the health or vitality of people in their 70's to do their job?

And if it is acceptable, shouldn't we be able to do the same thing to someone seeking the toughest job in the country?

The McCain campaign has another "scare" commercial regarding taxes:

However, while McCain admits to being "computer illiterate" - the Obama campaign has taken to the internet airwaves to fight these lies and distortions within hours:

One of the finest pieces of political satire EVER! John McCain as Clubber Lang? Are you kidding me?!

Ah Sean Hannity, my favorite construction worker turned political commentator. Seems Sean wanted to dedicate a whole show to the recent infidelity of former Presidential hopeful John Edwards. Now this is perfectly fine on it's face. I mean John Edwards painted himself as a loving husband and family man during his campaign, all the while knowing that he'd carried on an affair a year earlier with another woman. He's gotta take his lumps, right? Sure.

But Hannity couldn't stop there. He kept fishing for some "higher meaning" to it all. Asking questions as to why this wasn't such a big deal, while anti-gay Republican politicians were big news when they were outed as being gay. Asking about "hush money" being paid to the adulterous woman in question. However, without getting any traction to his whining - he just kept digging deeper and deeper until he fell in a hole.

The real fireworks being when a guest brings up the fact that Edwards' wife is (and has been) suffering with cancer during this ordeal, and Hannity makes this statement (at the 2:03 mark):

"I want to go back to this fundamental issue. I want to know - you gotta explain this to me. I'm just not getting this. Explain to me - I'm just a regular guy, and I'm wondering if you can't keep the promise to your family, can't keep your promise to your wife, you're having an affair, you're lying about the affair repeatedly. Why should the American people trust you when you say you're not going to lie to them? Why should we trust you?

On the surface these seem like a legitimate questions, right? However, the problem here is that John Edwards is not seeking office at all. But as Alan Colmes points out, only one of the two Presidential candidates has infidelity in his past - and it ain't Barack Obama.

John McCain married Carol Shepp, an attractive swimwear model, in 1965. At the time of their marriage, she had two small boys from a previous marriage (whom McCain adopted) and they then had a daughter in 1966. When John McCain was shot down in Vietnam, it was Carol who stood by him year after year and became very active in the POW/MIA movement.

However, when McCain returned from Vietnam, he seemingly wasn't interested in the reality that faced him. In the words of his former wife:

'My marriage ended because John McCain didn't want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.'

McCain apparently had several "indiscretions" with women prior to meeting his new wife Cindy in 1979. When he asked for a divorce, "It came as a shock," said a friend of Carol's. Court records show his cohabitation with Carol ended on January 7th, 1980 - he filed for divorce on Feb. 19th, 1980 - and he married Cindy in early May of that same year. In fact, McCain was filing for a marriage license while still married to his first wife. Now would this be front page news if Barack Obama had this past?

So why does any of this matter when electing a President? Maybe because it does speak to John McCain's ability to cast aside his "family values" when greater opportunities arise. It sure seemed that way to McCain family friend Ross Perot:

"McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history."

Now how's THAT for straight talk.

But no sooner does Hannity cry about the "double-standard" at the beginning of the piece, he attempts to apply his own some three minutes later. His reply to Alan Colmes talking about McCain's cheating past:

"Thirty years ago after five-and-a-half years in a Prisoner of War camp."

So which is it Sean? The thirty years? Is that the statute of limitations for Presidential candidates pasts?

Then I find it funny that Fox News (and "Hannity and Colmes") made such a big deal out of the phony "Obama/Madrasa" story a little while ago. After all, that story was almost FORTY years old and took place when Obama was only eight years old. This one is more recent, and McCain was 42 when cast his wife and three children aside for his 25 year-old bride.

And as for the "Vietnam" excuse, why don't we let McCain's own words speak for themselves:

"My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

Personally, this story doesn't matter that much to me. I have much bigger issues with McCain that the idea that he was an immature 40 year-old some 32 years ago. But it does matter to Sean Hannity and millions of "family values" Republicans out there... but apparently only when it involves a Democrat and some hussy with a video camera.

Don't you just love hypocrisy?

In November 2007, the Republican Presidential contenders gathered in Florida and debated a variety of topics. But one exchange of note happened between Senator John McCain and Congressman Ron Paul when discussing the Iraq War.

After Congressman Paul talked about bringing the troops home from Iraq, McCain responded by bringing up isolationism, World War II, Hitler, and then ended with this doozy:

"And I want to tell you something sir, I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops and their message to you is, the message of these brave men and women serving over there is, 'Let us win. Let us win.'

Now let's get one thing straight, John McCain spent exactly TWO DAYS in Iraq during Thanksgiving 2007, and I'm sure met his fair share of troops. But I absolutely think it's disgusting that he would dare attempt to speak for all service men & women when delivering a political message that supports his candidacy. To his credit, Ron Paul had a ready response:

"The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers, military personnel?"

It was a swift & brutal blow to the Arizona Senator's comments, and most of all because it was TRUE. If the majority of military personnel overseas truly supported the idea of "Let us win," then why would they donate more money to a Presidential Candidate who favored bringing them home?

Then today, came more information regarding the Obama/McCain race for the White House. It turns out that Barack Obama has received nearly SIX TIMES the amount of money from deployed military personnel than John McCain, and even leads McCain in overall military donations. This is a drastic change from 2000 when Bush outraised Gore 2:1, and 2004 when Bush got $1.50 for every dollar raised by Kerry.

John McCain can keep claiming he's speaking for the troops - but the troops are letting their financial support do the talking for them.

Well, right-wingers are at it again. Snopes has identified another anti-Obama email as complete and total nonsense. This goes along with a laundry list of lies about the Democratic Candidate. Man, are these guys desperate or what?

However, the crux of this Taxes email is that Obama wants to "more than double" the tax rates of people making as little as $30,000 per year. The phony email breaks it down this way:

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama your taxes will more than double!

How does this affect you?

No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.

Okay, first off... it's totally false. But if you're gonna just make up some numbers, how about having Obama's actually even double McCain's? These fictional figures don't even come close to the "more than double" claim. The even funnier thing is that the facts bear out that it's quite the opposite for the majority of Americans. Take a look at the actual breakdown (thanks to Snopes):


Notice how our "random emailer" didn't even bother with people making $125,000 or more? That's because almost everyone would like the super rich (like McCain himself) to pay their fair share of taxes, especially while some struggle to make ends meet.

In the end, the difference for people making less than $66,000 is quite striking. That's roughly SEVENTY PERCENT of American Households right there. This is where elections are won and lost and the Republicans can only rely on bald-faced lies in an attempt to win.

Not only would Obama's plan not "more than double" taxes on the Middle Class. The $38-$66K group would TRIPLE their tax relief under Obama. The $19-$38K group would pay SEVEN TIMES less taxes. And the under $19K crowd would be almost THIRTY TIMES better off.

How wants to bet these emails are being generated by the 2.9 million-plus crowd?

Take a look at Senator McCain's new ad:

Now let's take these point-by-point shall we?

"Washington is broken": Hey John, you're the guy touting your TWENTY SIX years of experience in that place you're identifying as "broken". Wouldn't this make you part of the problem? At least Obama can claim he's running after one term because he knew right away the place was screwed up.

"We're worse of than we were four years ago": First off, you weren't saying this just a few weeks ago. Remember when your campaign was telling the American people they were "whiners"? And also, if we really are worse off than we were four (or eight) years ago. What does it say about you that you voted with Bush 95% percent of the time in 2007? The country has known we were going in the wrong direction for years - and yet it seems like you just got on board with the idea.

"Only McCain has taken on Big Tobacco": McCain supported a 1998 bill that called for a $1.10 (per pack) tax hike for cigarettes that would have funded underage smoking education. It failed at the time. When asked recently if he still supported the tax hike? "McCain today does not support raising taxes on cigarettes," his adviser said.

"Taken on drug companies": And yet he employs numerous lobbyists on his campaign staff (who advise him daily) who've made millions arguing on behalf of these same drug companies.

"Fought corruption in both parties": Are you kidding me? McCain was corruption enough for both parties in the late 80's. His "Keating Five" shenanigans cost the American taxpayer some 125 billion dollars, while he consistently took favors and made thousands from a con artist.

via Wikipedia:
Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.

"He'll battle Big Oil": This one's a laugh because his flip-flop is still hot off the presses. McCain opposed off shore drilling for years, and then - when opportunity knocked - he flipped, and immediately raised $750,000 dollars from that nasty "Big Oil" for his campaign. Coincidence? Me thinks that'll soften McCain's "battling" just a bit.

"He's the Original Maverick": Sadly, the "Maverick" who once resided inside McCain is long gone. He's sold out any of that individual spirit, and now backs things that he never would have touched almost weekly.

In fact, a recent article in the New York Times shed some light into McCain's campaign since Karl Rove's hacks (like Steve Schmidt) came aboard. It seems "The Maverick" enjoys using his cell phone to solicit advice from a wide range of close personal contacts, but those varying opinions have led to some new rules on the campaign:

Mr. Schmidt has sought to cut down on Mr. McCain's use of his cellphone and limit the people who have regular access to Mr. McCain in an effort to keep him more focused, advisers said.

So John McCain wants to be in control of the country - and yet he can't even be trusted with his cell phone?! If I'm not mistaken, the whole charm of "Straight Talk" was that it wasn't committee-based bullshit - but rather opinions STRAIGHT from McCain. Now he can't be trusted to "stay focused" on the message of the day?! I guess that's one more attribute down the drain.

Ready to lead? Yeah right.

Last spring when gas prices started rising week after week, John McCain backed a "gas tax holiday" that would lasted from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The 18.4 cent per gallon tax would have saved individual drivers an estimated $25-30 dollars during this time, but also would have added to an already growing problem.

You see, this tax is specifically used to support the Highway Trust Fund, which funds road projects nationwide and (oh yeah) is already facing a 3.4 billion dollar shortfall. So, in essence, we'd be trading our safety on the nations roads for a few cents at the pump. If this had actually taken place, I wonder how the people of Minneapolis, Minnesota would have reacted to this?

You see, thanks to neglect, the city experienced a tragedy just one year ago. The Interstate 35W bridge killed 13 and injured more than 100 when it collapsed into the Mississippi River. In its wake, critics like Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "If we don't put money into our roads and bridges and infrastructure, our economy will get even worse. We won't be able to transport anything across this country."

Those are some strong words. But less than a year later, when citizens were feeling the pinch at the pump, McCain was willing to "roll the dice" for some short-term support at the polls. That's not the kind of leader I'm looking to elect, and I'm sure more than a few commuters in Minneapolis would agree.

And, as irony would have it, these citizens will be able to voice their concerns first-hand with McCain during the Republican National Convention which is taking place in less than a month at the Convention Center in (you guessed it) Minneapolis, Minnesota.