WHERE WAS THIS JOHN KERRY IN 2004!?

SARAH PALIN MAKES COMEDY WRITING EASY!

McCAIN RETURNS TO WASHINGTON - NOT TO CAPITOL HILL THOUGH

That's right, Mr. "Country First" spent the day at his Arlington, Virginia apartment - and at his campaign headquarters "around the corner":

By mid-afternoon, Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, Mark Salter, told reporters that Mr. McCain would not go to Capitol Hill on Saturday but would make phone calls to try to push the deal along. “He’s calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can,’’ Mr. Salter said.

Asked why Mr. McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, Mr. Salter replied that “he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.’’

Wait, he can do what he needs to do by phone? That's not what he said on Wednesday when he desperately tried to score some political points by pretending to suspend his campaign and slink back to Washington. I thought Johnny was gonna "roll his sleeves up"?

Maybe McCain is actually taking some advice from Barack Obama, who said on Thursday:

"My preference is to use the phone and to talk to people and work with them - including Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke and others - in a way that is not a photo-op because I think sometimes that prevents things from getting done. It is amazing what you can get done when you are not looking for credit for it."

So on a day when John McCain stayed away from the negotiations, the Associated Press is reporting that an agreement has been reached. Wow, just imagine how much work can get done if Americans retire this idiot back to Arizona?

CHECK OUT THE PICTURE

Notice anything missing?

You know, I always thought the whole "flagpin on the lapel" issue was silly at best, but can anyone honestly say that it wouldn't be a topic of discussion today had it been Obama without the flag on his chest?

McCAIN JUST DOESN'T GET IT

Right wingers are chirping that Barack Obama said McCain "is right" several times last night. However what they apparently fail to realize is that, more often than not, it was used to accentuate a difference of opinion between the two. It's like saying, "Yeah, Bill Clinton is right when he says husbands should be faithful to their wives, but why then was he getting a blowjob from an intern?" Is that a compliment?

I think even a 70-something (and his paid staff) know the real answer - but that didn't stop them from rushing out this commercial:

First off, I love how the McCain Campaign really feels like it has to answer their own question at the end of the commercial. Also, if you take the commercial at face value and assume that Obama is indeed agreeing with McCain on certain points - why would that necessarily mean he's not ready to lead? Isn't that kinda crapping on your own candidacy?

I think - like most things McCain these days - the idea was jumped on before a coherent plan was formed. In this case, it meant cutting quotes in half to remove any context of what Obama was actually saying. Here's a breakdown of the examples used in the commercial:

SEGMENT #1:
The commercial uses this portion of Obama's statement:

"Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility..."

And here's the whole quote:

“Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.”

This was a comment meant to accentuate the fact that McCain has been for more deregulation of Wall Street, and only recently started preaching "regulation" when his practices proved disastrous. How about some context Johnny?

SEGMENT #2:
The portion used:

“Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused..."

The whole quote:

“Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.”

Again, it's used to make a point. Obama suspended all earmark requests for 2008, unlike McCain's "reformer" V.P. Sarah Palin. She's requested 31 earmarks worth nearly $200 million this year.

And finally, SEGMENT #3:
The portion used:

“Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right...”

The whole quote:

Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

Again, the entire thought skewers McCain's tax theory by exposing the "loopholes" that American corporations use to skirt their economic responsibilities. In fact, here's a story from August that details the problem of nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies (and 68% of foreign companies) not paying income taxes at all.

And although they didn't use it in the commercial, my favorite "you're right" of the night was this:

"John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is."

I simply love that Obama mentioned this on a night when McCain skewered Ahmadinejad for his outrageous statements. He even left out McCain's "maybe that's one way of killing 'em" line about Iranian imports of cigarettes.

Through is feeble attempts at "humor", John McCain has proven time and time again that he's the one who's, "Not ready to lead." All words matter Mr. McCain... that goes for the one's you leave out from your opponent... as well as the stupid one's you spew that could directly affect the relations of countries around the world.

JED LEWISON IS FAST!

Jed takes one of Obama's strongest moments from the debate, and backs up each point with video of McCain himself:

SOME EARLY POLL NUMBERS REGARDING THE DEBATES

First, some surprising screen shots from CNN's telephone poll:Next, a snap poll of undecided voters from CBS where 39% gave the win to Obama, 24% to McCain, and 37% were (you guessed it) undecided. Obama also won big (66-42%) on handling the economy.

Another poll is much closer, but still a 42-41% win for Obama.

Also of note, John King broke down CNN's research poll a bit further and came up with these interesting results:

• men scored the debate for McCain (46-43%)
• women scored the debate for Obama (59-31%)
• people age 50 and older scored the debate for Obama (48-40%)

King noted that these 50+ voters consistently have the highest percentage of turnout and could be a difference maker. All in all, I am pleased to know that my eyes didn't deceive me.

DID YOU THINK McCAIN'S "COUNTRY FIRST" STUNT WAS BULLSHIT? YOU WERE RIGHT!

On Wednesday John McCain pledged to put "country first" and fly to Washington D.C. and stay until a deal was reached on the current economic crisis. Here's his statement from Wednesday afternoon:

Then on Thursday - six days into negotiations and with Congress seemingly nearing a deal - Congressional Republicans decided to hatch a plan of their own.

Now with competing plans fighting for support, and the whole process more confusing than ever, what's "The Maverick" doing? Why he's flying to Mississippi to debate Barack Obama of course! That's right, John McCain is (once again) saying one thing, and doing another.

Here's the statement from his campaign:

"Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House," the statement said. "He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations."

Did EVERYONE miss the part of his speech 36 hours ago that said he'd stay in Washington until "significant progress" and a "framework" for an eventual deal was established?

This guy is all over the map! Dare I say that he looks less Presidential than his Vice Presidential Candidate - and that's saying something.

"Country First" my ass!

FOX NEWS "NO LIKEY" MENTIONING THE KEATING FIVE

Steve Doocy wanted to applaud John "The Maverick" McCain's trip back to The Capitol. The only problem? He invited Progressive Radio Show Host Mike Papantonio to weigh in as well. Needless to say, when Papantonio decided to draw a pretty clear similarity to the current bailout and the last one where McCain was caught "strong-arming" a regulator, the interview was over:

Don't you just love how things are "in the past" and part of "The History Channel" on a selective basis? After all, McCain would like voters to judge his "character" based on his P.O.W. experience some 40 YEARS AGO - but bring up something negative from 20 years ago and all of the sudden it's invalid?

What a Doocebag!

WAIT A SECOND, TOWNHALL.COM IS HELPING ME REGAIN MY SANITY?

Finally a woman - and a conservative one at that - has the guts to tell it like it is about Sarah "Barracuda" Palin.

I give you : THE PALIN PROBLEM

IS PALIN ACTUALLY ACCUSING RUSSIA OF VIOLATING U.S. AIRSPACE?!

I still am in awe that this is actually happening!

Here's the quote:

"It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there."

Is Palin claiming that Russia is violating our air space in Alaska? Is she claiming that we do the same with predator drones in Russia? You know, this would be a fantastic joke if this woman wasn't so close to becoming the President of the United States.

Let's also be clear about something, the portion of Russia that comes closest to Alaska is not what you'd call a "hotbed" of Russian airspace. Here's a Map of Russia:
The upper-right (and yellow) portion of the map is the closest geographical point to Alaska. It's called Chukotka, and has fallen on some hard times since the "readjustment" of Russia in the early 1990's. It's population (once over 160,000) has dropped to a mere 55,000 - or roughly .1 inhabitant per square kilometer.

As for her claim that they were "keeping an eye" on Putin from Alaska, it should be noted that Moscow (where he resides) is some 4,000 miles away from the area, and therefore would make any spying operations launched from Alaska a pretty pointless adventure. It's like a foriegn country saying they were flying over Hawaii to "keep an eye" on President Bush - and that analogy only works if Hawaii were a nearly uninhabited chunk of frozen tundra.

At some point there has to be some "straight talk" from the media about Sarah Palin, right? Are we living in a dream world where this crap is allowed to pass?

DIGG THIS ARTICLE

RACHEL MADDOW EXPOSES BUSH'S "DIRTY TRICKS" IN TRYING TO HELP ELECT JOHN McCAIN

REST EASY AMERICA!

John Sidney McCain is headed back to Washington D.C. to take charge in this economic crisis! Here's just a small example of McCain's expertise on all facets of the economy. Take it away:

THIS IS JUST SAD...

Sarah Palin sat down with Katie Couric on Tuesday and clearly looks like someone who's been given specific talking points and little else. If she has more to say and is being held back by her campaign - this is tragic. If this is all she can say on these subjects - it's equally tragic. And the hand gestures?! WTF!

During her appearance at the U.N. this week, the media was met with strict rules by the McCain Campaign and very little interaction with Palin. Now it appears that McCain's plan for delaying the Presidential Debates, was actually to replace (and postpone) next weeks' Vice Presidential debate. Apparently her "study sessions" aren't sticking like the campaign would like.

AT HIS WORST MOMENT IN THE CAMPAIGN, JOHN McCAIN GIVES UP

This morning, John McCain woke up to a Washington Post poll that has him down 52-43%, his economic deficit against Obama is worse (57-33%), and his Campaign Manager (Rick Davis) has just been exposed for taking money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac up until last month, despite assurances from McCain that it stopped in 2005.

So what do you do when your Presidential Campaign is falling apart at the seams? Apparently you suspend your campaign, try to postpone debates, and go back to your old job as Senator in an attempt to show yourself as a "roll up your sleeves" kind of guy:

"Tomorrow morning I'll suspend my campaign and return to Washington," he told reporters.

The real question is, "Why tomorrow?" These meetings with Paulson and Bernanke have been going on since Monday. Furthermore the meetings that are currently taking place are with committees that John McCain is not a part of. If this is truly the crisis that McCain says it is, what good does it do the process to bring his "photo ops" into the picture?

Obama is also not a member of any of the committees meeting with the Treasury Secretary for Chairman of the Federal Reserve, which is why he said this yesterday:

In summary, there's no doubt negotiations over the next few days will be difficult. I will continue to stay in close contact with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, as well as the leaders of Congress, to ensure that we can work in a bipartisan manner to get this done as quickly as possible.

Maybe if someone could show McCain how to use a friggin' Blackberry, he wouldn't have to bring his circus of a campaign into the middle of situation that doesn't need him - at all. Isn't this the same guy who said, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," just nine days ago?

UPDATE: (via Huffingtonpost.com) The whole "bipartisan thing" happened at 8:30AM this morning when Obama called McCain:

"At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."

Also, this is an odd move for a guy who JUST YESTERDAY claimed he HADN'T EVEN READ THE THREE-PAGE PROPOSAL from Paulson and the Administration? In response to the crisis and the propsal, McCain told Cleveland TV station WKYC:

"I have not had a chance to see it in writing. I have to examine it."

Haven't had a chance to see it? Why do you have a staff? You're a friggin' United States Senator?! It's THREE FRIGGIN' PAGES JOHN?! You can't get up to speed in three days on something that might cost the taxpayer some $700 billion dollars?!

Are we really supposed to believe that this decision is anything but a political stunt to offset his plummeting poll numbers? This is pathetic.

STORIES ON SARAH PALIN

With the McCain Campaign continuing to sequester their Vice Presidential candidate, Salon.com has several stories that detail Palin rise to political fame, as well as how voters view her. Here's a few:

MEAN GIRL

SARAH PALIN, ENERGY EXPERT

SARAH PALIN'S WASTEFUL WAYS

PALIN'S DEAD LAKE

WHAT SMALL TOWN AMERICA THINKS OF SARAH PALIN

I still say that Palin's selection speaks volumes about McCain's hasty judgment, and simply reiterates that we can't have another President who makes such important decisions with "his gut". As McCain said himself:

“I make them (decisions) as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

Many people attribute this "quick reaction" strategy to McCain's years as a Navy pilot. With that in mind, it should also be noted that McCain wrecked FIVE PLANES while using this "cat-like" method.

LIMBAUGH ADDS "ARAB" TO NEWS STORY

As reported earlier today, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing mouthpieces have "Arab" on the brain when it comes to Barack Obama. Well, thanks to ThinkProgress, we have another shining example of Limbaugh's desperation. First, here is a passage from the Philadelphia Daily News that points out the very real problem of prejudiced white voters struggling to support a black candidate for President:

"Obama's name and his African heritage are obstacles to the party's chances of capturing the White House, party activists are finding."

Now here's Rush Limbaugh reading the very same passage (follow along from above):

See how he just slips "Arab" in there like a pro? I just love that the actual story about bigoted voters wasn't enough for Limbaugh and his audience, he just had to add a fictional "cherry" on the racist sundae.

SMOOTH TALKER

John McCain held his first press conference in 40 days today. Here's why he'll probably take a break for the next 40:

Also, Sarah Palin's pool reporters were barred from her meetings at the U.N. - apparently the McCain Campaign is more concerned about her ability to answer questions than anyone thought. Heck, even Fox News criticized this move. Woof!

YAY! MORE BULLSHIT FROM THE RIGHT THAT DOESN'T MATTER!

Apparently the right-wingers are willing to do whatever they can to stamp Barack Obama with the "Arab" smear, even if it means flying in the face of the truth. Some idiot named Kenneth E, Lamb floated the original theory (without documentation) on his blog that:

"Sen. Obama is actually Arab-American."

Since then, both Fox News' contributor Monica Crowley & Rush Limbaugh have parroted this line in hopes of somehow smearing Obama to those bigoted few who would care. Here's Limbaugh from the September 22nd edition of his flapping mouthfest:

First off, his father came from Kenya, which isn't included in the "Arab portion" of Africa. Also, the Arab League defines as "Arab":

"a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."

Mind you that Obama's father was raised in Kenya, who's primary languages are English and Swahili. Also, one of his daughters is one record saying Obama Sr.:

"was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name."

But let's also remind everyone that Obama's father left him when he was TWO YEARS OLD, and saw him ONE MORE TIME before he died in 1982. Is it any wonder that growing up in Hawaii, and then living in New York City and Chicago that Obama would identify himself as "black"? And with all the problems going on in this country, should it really matter to anyone what the background of his absentee father was?

This stuff comes straight from the "desperation playbook" of the Republican Party. I'd say that Rush Limbaugh (and others) should be ashamed of themselves, but they've got a career made out of baseless attacks like these.

CAN ANYONE JUST TELL THE FU$%KING TRUTH ANYMORE?

This whole "$700 billion-dollar bail out" is looking worse by the moment. Here's Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson speaking to the Congress' concerns about having oversight as to where the money is spent:

So you'll notice that Paulson claims it would be "presumptuous" to come up with an oversight mechanism, and them claims over and over:

So if any of you felt that I didn’t believe that we needed oversight: I believe we need oversight. We need oversight.

Does this guy think we're all idiots? The "three-page outline" he speaks of actually did speak to the oversight question - and it not only wanted NONE OF IT, it wanted NO ABILITY even question it AFTER THE FACT!

From (Section 8) of the three-page document:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

How does Paulson explain this? He doesn't. He now says "we're going to work on" oversight together - but that's not what the three-page proposal outlined.

These bald-faced lies have to end. I hate the idea that government officials feel like they can lie in the face of facts. That they feel like they can go "media silent" rather than answer questions. The media needs to expose these lies and let the liars feel the public's wrath.

John McCain's campaign has just got a touch of this treatment, and they don't like it one bit. I say, "Too bad."

WHAT DOES GEORGE WILL THINK OF JOHN McCAIN?

I think it's safe to say that George Will is safely on the conservative side of most arguments. So it makes it all the more interesting that Will would use this as the opening line of his most recent article in The Washington Post:

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

The rest of the read is just as striking - and honest. READ IT HERE.

VIDEO PROOF OF McCAIN'S DEREGULATING WAYS

In the midst of an economic crisis that was created by the massive deregulation of Wall Street, John McCain now says we need more regulation to stop "corporate greed". In fact just a few days ago he said this:

"Too many firms on Wall Street have been able to count on casual oversight by regulatory agencies and government,'" he said at an event in Tampa, Florida. "Under my reforms, the American people will be protected by comprehensive regulations that will apply the rules and enforce them in full.'"

Did McCain just say "comprehensive regulations"!? Is this guy serious?

This is classic John McCain. He can't see a problem coming in the distance, so instead he adopts a policy that he's railed against his entire career for political gain. Heck, this guy was caught up in the last huge government bail-out as a member of "The Keating 5", and yet he still fought for less and less government regulation until just 10 days ago.

Here's a nice piece of video (again from Jed Lewison) of how McCain and the RNC viewed regulation BEFORE our current problems:

COLIN POWELL TAKES HIS TURN MAKING JOHN McCAIN LOOK LIKE A FOOL

Just over a month ago, I posted these two videos which showed the strange bias on how the Georgia/Russian battle was being reported in the United States. It seemed that all we were hearing was that tiny Georgia had been attacked out of the blue by big, bad Russia. John McCain went so far as to say to the American people, "Today, we are all Georgians."

He also stated this in the wake of the skirmish:

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."

Many people at the time gave McCain credit for seizing on the crisis to make strong statements, but hearing reports that it was, in fact, Georgia itself who started the aggression only served to muddy the waters a bit. As it turns out, a true leader is better off gathering all the facts before launching into rhetoric that could strain relations for decades to come.

These thoughts we echoed by none other than former Secretary of State Colin Powell last week. In a meeting of five former Secretaries of State, Powell had this to say on the Georgia conflict, and McCain's response:

Also, I hear a lot from my Father-in-law about how dangerous it is to speak with countries like Iran without preconditions. However, it's strange that all five former Secretaries of State agree that it's something that the next President must do:

Again, how many foreign policy opinions does Barack Obama need to show superior judgment over McCain to finally gain the perception that he's the better man for America's National Security issues?

"REFORMER" SARAH PALIN COMPLETES WORLD'S LARGEST CUL-DE-SAC

She's finally given up her "Thanks, but no thanks," crap concerning the Bridge to Nowhere, but that didn't stop Sara Palin from spending $27 million of our tax dollars to complete the approach road to that unbuilt bridge. Ouch.

WHO'S THE ELITIST?

His campaign may try to paint John McCain as the "everyman", but images like these tell a different story. Remember when it was a liability (for Kerry) to be married to a rich woman?

McSAME USES THE SAME TEAM BUSH DID TO GET ELECTED?

It's disgusting that McCain would use the same people who smeared him in South Carolina eight years ago to help him get elected. After the push-polling that asked, "Would it affect your decision if you knew John McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock?" McCain is on record saying:

"I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."

I guess by "a special place in hell," he meant "a special place in my campaign?"

Here's a breakdown (via The Washington Post) of former Bush Campaigners who now work for McCain:

CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE

NOT A JOKE - PLAN TO "SAVE THE ECONOMY" IS ONLY THREE PAGES LONG?!

On Friday, the Bush Administration promised to deliver a plan to bail out financial institutions with the idea of stabilizing the economy. Well apparently - like in college - Dubya and his buddies got drunk Friday evening, carried it through Saturday afternoon before sobering up and screaming, "Oh shit, the plan!"

What they delivered to Congress Sunday morning was a three-page plan with little details other than, "Give us money, we'll do the rest!" No joke. Watch the reporter hold up the papers!

CHRIS MATTHEWS WAKES UP!

If only the rest of the media could spell it out this clearly to people. McCain and Graham ARE THESE PROBLEMS! This is deregulation at it's best!

TIMES CHANGE, BUT FOX NEWS DOESN'T

Compare the tactics against Obama in 2008, to Kerry in 2004.

By the way, I think Robert Greenwald does a great job with his videos - but I simply hate his "Pssst... do something," tag line at the end.

BUSH: "WALL STREET GOT DRUNK"

On July 18th of this year, George W. Bush addressed a group at a political fundraiser. After he asked the media to turn their cameras off, he spoke candidly about the then tenuous financial situation the country faced:

So while Bush knew of problems on Wall Street, and in the troubled housing markets, he chose not to even speak of it in public. After all, why would America want to hear from it's President when he knows there's a problem going on?

Fast-forward to this weekend, after several billion dollar bail outs and as members of Congress discuss another 1.5 trillion "band-aid" with taxpayer money, Bush has still told the American people very little - and led his country even less.

This made me start thinking about Bush's Presidency.

It's amazing to think that we have a five-plus year war in Iraq, costing us 10 billion a month, and still no WMD found.

It's been over seven years since Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers, and while Saddam Hussein is dead, bin Laden still lives.

We still hold (and torture) individuals for unspecified lengths of time, without charges.

American citizens are subject to spying, complete with Telecommunication Companies help.

Bush (and company) slept walked through nearly a week of devastation by Hurricane Katrina.

Of course I'm simplifying a list that could easily keep me up all night, but it's simply amazing the amount of destruction that has happened under Bush's watch.

And it's equally amazing to think that some ten years ago, Republicans actually brought Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton for lying under oath.

Was he lying about war? About torture? About collapsing financial markets?

No, he was lying about receiving a sexual act from someone other than his wife.

Oh boy, the good old days indeed!

STEPHEN COLBERT ON - GUESS WHO?

SARAH PALIN THINKS YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

She's STILL defending that "Bridge to Nowhere" lie? I mean who does she think she's kidding at this point? It's been reported as false over and over the last two weeks on every network but Fox. They've shown video of her 2006 Gubernatorial Debate when she supported the Bridge. She's on record time and time again prior to the Congress pulling her funding. And now, when Hannity gives her the opportunity to come clean, she does this:

Hey Sarah, here's a clue - people are sick and tired of a President and Vice President who lie to the American people. They don't like the "secret email" crap you got going on either. Oh yeah, and that "I won't testify" bullshit is gonna go over like gangbusters with the undecided. You and that "Keating 5" guy are the perfect people to reform Washington D.C. all right.

Heck, even your home state knows you're lying through your teeth.

RON PAUL ASKED TO ENDORSE McCAIN, INSTEAD HUMILIATES HIM ON NATIONAL TELEVISION

Thanks again to the Jed Report for this little piece of video. It seems that McCain advisor Phil Gramm asked Congressman Ron Paul to endorse "The Maverick" himself. Paul, as he does so often, tells the truth - and it's brutal.

Just in case you missed it, McCain also thought it was funny to make a joke about "killing Iranians" as well:

Even though these are "jokes", as McCain says, how do you think they play with the Iranian people? Would we think it was funny if a foreign leader made repeated "jokes" about bombing and killing Americans?

This simply isn't Presidential.

IS PALIN NOW THE TOP OF THE TICKET?

She apparently thinks so. Listen for the "Palin and McCain Administration" line after her amazing grasp of economic theory. How come this "we take less, you get more" concept hasn't worked during Dubya's eight years?

A FORMER EDITOR OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA?

Yes, it's true. For those of you who don't know the National Review, it's like Playboy for conservative junkies. Founded by William F. Buckley, the magazine current contributors include Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, and Rich Lowry among others. Therefore it's really shocking to come across a former editor who's willing to publicly endorse a Democratic Candidate, let alone Barack Obama. But that's precisely what Wick Allison has done.

I won't post the entire article here, as it's better believed in its "natural surroundings" in D Magazine - Allison's Dallas-based periodical. But here's a snippet from "A Conservative for Obama":

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Read the rest of the article HERE.

This kind of sane explanation of the Conservative Movement gives me hope for the other side of the aisle, and also allows me to continue my disdain for the "Drill, baby drill" crowd we saw at the RNC Convention.

THE ONION: THE NEW NOSTRADAMUS?

This would be funnier if it weren't so prophetic. From The Onion's archives (dated January 17, 2001) comes this story:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us." "My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

There's also this unbelievable passage:

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

There's more, but you really should see it from the source, HERE.

WHAT OBAMA'S NEW CAMPAIGN SLOGAN SHOULD BE: "I'M BILL CLINTON, WITHOUT THE BLOWJOB!"

I mean seriously, after eight years of an economic nightmare - why not? After all, under Bill Clinton, the Dow Jones went from 3,255 (in January 1993) to 10,790 (in January 2001). That's an increase of 7,535 points in eight years. Under Bush, we've gone from 10,790 (again, in January 2001) to today's closing of 10,609. That's a drop of 181 points with just three months left to go for Bush's eight year run? A net LOSS over eight years?! Are you KIDDING ME?

So which is better? 7,535 for Clinton, or -181 for Bush? Tell that to the next right-wing idiot that tells you a Democratic President is bad for business, Wall Street, commerce, or anything else.

SARAH PALIN DIVERTS FROM SCRIPT, UNKNOWINGLY SKEWERS HER OWN CAMPAIGN MANAGER

After Sarah Palin's "tough" interview with Charlie Gibson, the McCain-Palin Campaign decided to give the next opportunity to Fox News' own Sean Hannity. Hannity, of course, lined up as many anti-Obama questions as he could, but Palin decided to take some questions her own way, and not to the benefit of her ticket. Here's the passage:

Of course Hannity's question is a loaded one. With current "caps" for donations, taking them from rank and file employees does not necessarily correlate to candidate support for the company. After all, low-level Exxon employees do not directly benefit like corporate lobbyists and executives do.

This makes this little graphic from the New York Times even more interesting:
It also draws attention to McCain's Campaign Manager Rick Davis, as well as 20 McCain fundraisers who've lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then there's this little nugget:

And for years, Rick Davis served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation.

It's precisely that lack of regulation that allowed these companies to dig themselves in deeper and deeper financial trouble, without the government (and the taxpayer) knowing how much we'd be "on the hook" for when they went down.

And who has been one of the biggest supporters of corporate deregulation his entire career? That's right - John McCain! ABC News did a nice retrospective on McCain's history of supporting deregulation - it starts around the :50 second mark:

Throw in McCain's involvement in the 1980's Savings and Loan bailouts, and this could mean real trouble for the "Maverick" McCain.

McCAIN'S FAVORITE LINE? HOW ABOUT "THE FUNDAMENTALS OUR ECONOMY ARE STRONG"?

If anyone ever asks you, "What good is it to have a DVR?" Show them this video. Here's EIGHTEEN DIFFERENT TIMES McCain has used his "fundamentals" line since December 31, 2007.

By the way, ThinkProgress has noted that McCain's "fundamentals" line is eerily similar to President Hoover's message during the onset of The Great Depression. On October 25th, 1929 - following a day known as "Black Thursday" - Hoover declared:

The fundamental business of the country, that is the production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.

Now do you feel better with McCain's "we're gonna fix it" line?

McCAIN PROVES HE'S AN IDIOT ON THE ECONOMY - AGAIN

Here's McCain on yesterday's Today Show, and this morning's Good Morning America. Yesterday he's violently against a taxpayer bailout of AIG, and this morning he's for it.

By the way, you'll have to sit thought a bunch of bullshit in between while McCain attempts to "connect" with hardworking Americans by mentioning a three people he had dinner with, and also nearly getting their vocations wrong. He also uses them to try to float his phony "workers are the fundamentals of our economy line". Pretty shameless stuff.

Hey, too bad Cindy couldn't be behind him in her $300,000 outfit from the RNC Convention. That'd help the connection with hardworking Americans, huh?

MORE LIES!

If she's truly qualified... then why not deal with the facts?

OBAMA EXPLAINS WHAT HE'S DONE TO TRY TO AVERT OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

Here's video of Barack Obama speaking today in Colorado. He does a good job of laying out what he's done over the past two years to try to avoid these current economic problems:

Here's the March, 2007 letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Paulson.

Here's the Reuters article from April, 2007 about Mortgage Fraud Legislation.

I can only hope voters can follow Obama's detailed explanation and see McCain's, "We're gonna fix it," rhetoric as the empty words it is.

By the way, did anyone else catch the subtle "Keating 5" smack?

AGAIN, THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN TRIES DECEPTION RATHER THAN THE TRUTH

Yesterday John McCain was roundly criticized for saying, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." However, when right-wing pundits took to the airwaves to defend McCain, they stated that he wasn't speaking about the actual "financial" aspects of the economy, that would be silly. Rather he was somehow talking about the "fundamental" strength of the American Worker. After all, who can criticize the hard-working Americans, right? More on that later.

But just like so many deceptions coming from the McCain Campaign, this was just another instance of clumsy damage control rather than dealing with the truth of the matter. The facts are that John McCain gave a speech yesterday in Jacksonville, Florida at 9:30AM where he debuted his "fundamentals" line:

Notice that there's no mention of the "American Worker" at all? So did everyone else, which is why the criticism of McCain started. McCain was accused of not being in touch with the American people who were struggling with their mortgages, gas prices, and groceries. Which is why somewhere between Jacksonville and Orlando, someone decided to change McCain's "fundamentals" to fit a new (and never before heard) definition. Here he is on stage just over three hours later:

Pretty slick huh? Now if you're calling John McCain out on his "fundamentals" line you're stamped as anti-worker! This dude is about as sleazy as it gets. Did you see how he even threw in the line, "My opponents might not agree with me," to try to create some backlash against the Obama Campaign?

The ironic part of all this is that it is McCain, in fact, who questioned the work ethic of the American Worker just two years ago while speaking at an AFL-CIO meeting:

I wonder if the Democrats would ever consider using this piece of video against McCain?

A TRULY SCARY READ ABOUT THE McCAIN/PLAIN HEALTH PLAN

In recent days we've seen what a truly "free market" can do to our economic situation. Now we get a peek into how John McCain plans to let the free market take over your health insurance too.

A snippet:

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

Read the whole article HERE.

FIVE FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE URGE TALKS WITH IRAN

Barack Obama has taken some major heat over the idea that he would (gasp) talk with Iran without "preconditions" for doing so. The thing with the "precondition" argument that I've never understood is that often times it's the very thing you'd like to discuss - in this case Iran's nuclear program - that the U.S. would like to have scrapped as a "precondition" to talking. Is this confusing for anyone else?

This is what Obama says on his own website regarding negotiations with Iran:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Is this wrong? Has Bush's "plan" of ignoring the problem, and saber-rattling against Iran done us any good? Will continued isolation of Iran with veiled threats of war work for McCain? If only we had some insight from those people who understand the issue and it's complexities? Wait, how about asking a bi-partisan panel of five former U.S. Secretaries of State?

Well it turns out someone already did, and here's the consensus:

The five -- Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, James Baker and Henry Kissinger -- all said they favored talking to Iran as part of a strategy to stop Tehran's development of a nuclear weapons program.

The five appeared at a forum by The George Washington University and taped for broadcast on CNN. Mind you that Kissinger (Nixon and Ford), Baker (George H. W. Bush) and Powell (Geroge W. Bush) all worked for Republican Presidents.

Again, McCain has criticized Obama's stand on Iran, saying it shows his naivete and inexperience. Will he now go further and call the five former Secretaries of State "naive" and "inexperienced"?

And just how many National Security issues will Barack Obama have to kick McCain's ass at for people to finally see the Arizona Senator as the "weak one" to lead the United States in foreign relations?

MORE ON THE MYTH OF McCAIN'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVANTAGE

The other day I posted about Barack Obama's stance on Pakistan, and how history has backed-up his opinions on the matter. Well, I thought I'd post a video made by Jed Lewison which chronicles John McCain's equally bad judgment on all things National Security over the past six years. There's nothing like some video evidence throw cold water on McCain's supposed "strength" in this election.

HMMM... ARE WE SEEING A NEW CAMPAIGN TACTIC?

McCain Campaign Spokesperson Tucker Bounds is asked to clarify his candidate's lie on The View about Sarah Palin not taking any earmarks as Governor of Alaska. Norah O'Donnell mentions this Wall Street Journal article about Palin's $453 million is earmark requests, and Tucker begins by not addressing the question at all. Then in the middle of his attempted Obama smear... well, you take a look:

Another thing needs to be made clear here. Comparing earmarks between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin is a lame distraction - nothing more. First off, from a population standpoint, Obama's state (Illinois) is over 19 times the size of Alaska. So while Obama gets $67 per Illinois resident, Palin gets $690 per Alaskan resident. Second, Obama stopped all earmark requests for this year, while Palin added $197 million in 2008. And last, Obama isn't running the "no earmark" campaign like McCain and Palin are.

Obama plans to pay for things by raising taxes on those making $250,000 and more, and closing corporate loopholes that have large corporations paying little (or no) taxes. By keeping (and expanding) the Bush Tax Cuts, McCain/Palin have to push massive spending reductions as their attempt at claiming ANY "fiscal responsibility" at all. "Reform" and "taking on the old boy network" are the primary reasons given for Palin's selection over more qualified women in the Republican Party. These massive earmarks (and possible ethics violations) fly in the face of her selection.

No wonder the plug was pulled on Tucker Bounds. It's probably a better tactic than relying on reality to defend the defenseless.

UPDATE: If you have the time, here's the entire segment with Tucker Bounds and Norah O'Donnell. You can see Tucker is having a rough segment the whole way - by my count, Tucker says "ingenuity" three times while rambling on in hopes of finding a coherent answer. The bottom line is that there was simply no real explanation for McCain's "no earmarks as Governor" line on The View. In retrospect, pulling the plug might have been the smartest option.

IS THAT A FIDDLE IN NERO'S-- I MEAN McCAIN'S HAND?

A day after Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan called it "by far" the worst economic crisis he'd ever seen, John McCain still tries to feed the American people this tripe?

Two things: #1 - The numbers simply aren't adding up for McCain, and #2 - apparently it's too difficult to set up a teleprompter for these stump speeches.

By the way, Greenspan also bashed McCain's idea of promising tax cuts without first reducing spending:

"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."

So the McCain Campaign can talk all it wants about eliminating earmark spending, but it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the 3.3 trillion dollars in tax cuts that he is proposing. Earmark spending is estimated at just $17 billion dollars annually, so unless he can find some major cuts in programs like Social Security, Defense Spending, or Medicaid, it's just more deficit spending for the so-called party of the "fiscally responsible".

So what is it Johnny? Are we borrowing more money from China? Or are you going to reduce the benefits that Senior Citizens rely on? I'm sure Americans would love to know.

FINALLY, THE COMMERCIAL I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!

THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN PRETENDS THERE'S NO NATIONAL MEDIA

Sarah Palin's stump speeches have played like a broken record. 31 times she's spoken to crowds all over the United States, and 31 times she repeated her "Thanks, but no thanks" lie to the adoring masses. But that changed over the weekend when she returned to her home state. The speech in Fairbanks made no mention of the bridge or her supposed opposition to it. Some felt she may have finally succumbed to the media pressure, or had grown a conscience, but they were wrong.

You see it was less about telling the truth, and more about what region of people you're lying to. After all, Native Alaskans no doubt know that the Governor supported the bridge, and therefore might call bullshit on such a statement. It's a pretty simple equation: LIES + CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH = BAD IDEA.

So today, while campaigning in Carson City, Nevada, Palin again went back to the lies - reiterating the now laughable claim that she told Congress anything about the bridge other than "Yes, please."

But something else happened in Nevada. In all of Palin's other stops she touts McCain's energy plan, which includes a massive spending increase for nuclear power. However this speech omitted such a statement, possibly over fears that Nevadans are sensitive about a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. This equation looks like this: TALKING UP ENERGY PLAN + PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GET CANCER FROM SUCH A PLAN = BAD IDEA.

Wow! Changing speeches by region to deceive voters? How "Mavericky" indeed! These two are gonna make Washington D.C. a better and more transparent place!

Just for kicks... maybe Palin dropped the Nuclear portion of her speech because she's adopted Bush's "nook-yoo-lur" pronounciation?

SARAH PALIN CAN'T GET HER FACTS STRAIGHT: FITS IN WELL WITH McCAIN

One possibly overlooked portion of Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson was her National Security "expertise" answer about energy. Now never mind that knowledge on domestic energy has a very flimsy link to anything involving foreign policy experience, but wouldn't it help to have some actual knowledge on the subject?

First, here's Palin's answer:

Now let's draw attention to this passage right here:

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

Just for the record, when is 3.5 percent "nearly" 20 percent? When you're using "Palin-logic", that's when! Oh yeah, FactCheck.org smacks down this phony claim in a big way. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Alaska's domestic energy production is just 3.5 percent. In fact, if we're getting technical, the term "supply" is usually reserved for energy consumed, in which case the number shrinks to 2.4 percent. What's worse? McCain floated this phony "20 percent" line to Charlie Gibson just 10 days ago.

I mean if McCain and Palin are going to lie with impunity to the American people, why stop at 20 percent? Why not claim that Alaska produces 110 percent of our domestic energy, it's snow tastes like Cool Whip, and it's polar bears crap rolls of quarters?

McCAIN'S "STRENGTH" ON NATIONAL SECURITY IS A MYTH

Just over one year ago, in August 2007, Barack Obama gave his first major speech on foreign-policy. Among other subjects, Obama touched on Pakistan and the continued reluctance to address Al Qaeda's "safe haven" there. Here's a portion of the speech:

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

John McCain (and others) roundly criticized Obama for these remarks. In the wake of Obama's speech, McCain said this:

"It’s kind of typical of his naivete," McCain told the newspaper. "If we go in, and maybe we should depending on the assessment, we would want to do it covertly and we would want to do it in coordination with Pakistanis covertly as well."

So McCain calls Obama's stance "naive", and preaches coordination over quick action. Isn't this exactly what Clinton was chastised for by the Republicans? But because McCain says it, it's suddenly okay?

Also, in February of this year McCain said this about Pakistan:

"The one thing you want to do is not embarrass them," he said. "I've known these people and I have known them for many years. I know I can work with them for the good of the security of the United States. I would not broadcast to the world that I am going to bomb a sovereign nation in order to accomplish my goal."

Does that sound "tough" enough to you? With actionable intelligence, and when seconds matter, McCain favors not "embarrassing" someone over killing the terrorists that attacked us.

Which brings us to today, and the news that George W. Bush (as of July 2008) is doing exactly what Obama was criticized for. From the New York Time article:

President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

The story also explains that, like McCain, Bush favored working with the Pakistani Government, but that there was growing suspicion that Pakistani officials were compromising the American operations once they were advised of details.

In light of this, would McCain still risk our security over "embarrassing" Pakistani officials? Will he criticize George W. Bush for being "naive" too?

This revelation has led conservative journalist John Podhoretz to write an article entitled, "An Apology Due to Obama?"

If anyone cares to read the entire speech from Obama, it's HERE.

McCAIN SURROGATES USE - WAIT FOR IT - "P.O.W. INJURIES" AS REASON FOR McCAIN NOT USING COMPUTERS OR E-MAIL

This week Barack Obama issued this commercial:

Almost immediately, right wing talking heads speculated that the reason McCain doesn't use a computer, or email is because his war wounds won't allow him to. Karl Rove said just this morning on Fox News:

"His war injuries keep him from being able to use a keyboard, he can't type. Well that's like saying he can't do jumping jacks, well there's a reason he can't raise his arms above his head."

Now mind you the McCain Campaign has said nothing on this issue. Nor has John McCain ever cited his injuries as a reason why he doesn't use a computer or email. Here's a funny little video that was put together during the Republican Primaries that asked all the candidates computer preferences and other interests:

No mention of war injuries here. In fact, McCain calls himself "an illiterate" as far as using computers. To further complicate the right-wing's "theory" about McCain physical limitations, McCain said this in July of this year:

I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, even started to fight these "computer illiterate" questions earlier this summer, saying this:

He actually is, he always is grabbing people's Blackberrys on the bus. In fact, no reporter's Blackberry is safe from his prying eyes. He loves to tool around on the internet, he especially loves the videos that get produced that usually poke fun at him. I think that's his most entertaining part of the internet.

If you've ever "tooled around the internet" on a Blackberry, you'd know that the buttons are friggin' tiny. This would make this kind of internet surfing far more difficult than using a standard keyboard.

And finally, take a look at this picture of McCain driving while using a cell phone.
Now imagine a keyboard sitting in his lap. Are we really to believe that he can physically do one thing, and not the other? Also, as has been noted in many biographies on McCain, he regained his flight status after his release and commanded a squadron before retiring from the Navy in 1981. Are we really supposed to believe that flying a jet is less physically demanding that clicking keys on a keyboard?

John McCain's P.O.W. service is commendable and above any scrutiny. But the way the right-wing uses it as a "cure all" for any and all criticisms is truly shameful, and threatens to turn something of great political strength into a joke.

DEFENDING McCAIN'S "PRO-PEDOPHILE" COMMERCIAL

I blogged yesterday about John McCain's intentionally deceiving commercial that attempts to accuse Barack Obama of teaching "comprehensive sex education", even though the bill was about protecting children from sexual predators.

Today, in a discussion about the ad, Republican "talking head" Brad Blakeman tries his best to defend this dishonest trash and ends up looking like... well, a guy trying to defend dishonest trash.

Again, thanks to The Jed Report

LOCAL MAINE REPORTER ASKS TOUGHER QUESTIONS OF McCAIN THAN ANYONE?!

Maybe the McCain Campaign thought this small interview would be a cakewalk. Oh boy were they wrong.

THE EDUCATED ECONOMIST VS. A FORMER CONSTRUCTION WORKER

Robert Kuttner appeared on Hannity and Colmes to discuss his new book "Obama's Challenge", and came face-to-face with a belligerent Sean Hannity.

Now before the clip, let's take a look at the tale of the tape:
ROBERT KUTTNER: Educated at Oberlin College, The University of California (Berkeley), and the London School of Economics. Throughout his career he has taught at Brandeis, Boston University, and Harvard's Institute of Politics.

SEAN HANNITY: Is a self-described "indifferent student" who graduated from high school, but dropped out of college. He worked various construction jobs and as a bartender before taking up a radio career. Oh yeah, and he wears a suit and holds a pen.

Take it away boys!

IS JOHN McCAIN "PRO-PEDOPHILE"?

One of John McCain's new ads is entitled "Education" - take a look:

Now I know what you're saying, "Comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners?! Is Barack Obama crazy?!" And yes, he would be if it were the truth - but again (sadly) it isn't. If there was any doubt before that Karl Rove's minions were running McCain's Campaign, let them end right here. Thankfully, many media outlets have exposed McCain's shoddy commercial - but it still says much about the Arizona Senator who railed against such smears in 2000, that he would allow his approval on such trash.

What McCain fails to mention is that this particular bill was in favor of modifying sex education in order to protect all children from sexual predators. In the youngest age groups, it stressed teaching "age appropriate" material such as "good touch, bad touch". In 2004, during his Senate Campaign, Obama said this about the bill:

“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

McCain also doesn't inform the public that this bill was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association.

So what's the deal here? Are we really to believe that John McCain's Campaign was unaware of the bill's true intent? Nope. In fact, McCain's own press release regarding the commercial contains all the context anyone would need to know that this bill was about protecting children from sexual predators. Click THIS LINK and scroll to the fourth story from the bottom, and HERE'S THE LINK to the original story. It's simply INCREDIBLE and DISGUSTING! They actually provide the proof that they're distorting the facts of their attack ad?

This is truly a "no win" situation for Obama. A "Yes" vote gets this commercial, and a "No" vote would get an accusation that Obama refuses to protect children from sexual predators.

You know, John McCain can tell his 40 year-old P.O.W. story a million times and talk about "honor", "integrity", and "doing what's right" - but these lies tell more about the man today and how far he's willing to sink in order to win the Presidency.

FORMER EMPLOYEE OF SARAH PALIN: SHE'S NOT READY FOR THE JOB

Larry Persily, the former Associate Director at the Alaska Governor's Office, sits down with David Gregory to talk Sarah Palin and the Vice Presidential position.

Persily also does a good job of breaking down Palin's "talking points" from the Convention and various stump speeches over the past couple weeks.

SARAH PALIN'S "PERCEIVED WHINE"

Sarah Palin has refused interviews with reporters until, as McCain Campaign Head Rick Davis put it, they show her some "deference". This left me running (or typing) for a definition of the word, and here it is:

Respect and esteem due a superior or an elder.

Is this guy serious? I thought this was the "small town girl" who hunted moose and gutted fish? Now she wants "superior" treatment from the media above and beyond what every other candidate has received? It's already unheard of that any Vice Presidential candidate has avoided questions from the media for this long, let alone someone as little-known as Palin. Heck, Geraldine Ferarro was named on July 12th, 1984 and immediately started taking interviews.

Now Pastor Rick Warren admits to fielding a phone call from Palin just yesterday in which he said, "How can I pray for you?" Her response:

She asked me to send her some bible verses on how do you deal with all of the unfair, unjust attacks and the mean-spirited criticism that comes in.

Is this a joke? This is a woman running for the 2nd highest office in our country. If she thinks any of these "attacks" are unjust, how about clarifying the record to reporters? What's equally "unfair" to the American people is to have a woman repeat the same "Bridge to Nowhere" lie over and over during stump speeches and never be able to confront her with facts.

All of this reminds me of Hillary Clinton's charges last spring that she was subject to "sexism" in her media coverage during the primaries. But did Clinton impose a "media blackout"? No.

However one female politician didn't think claiming such "unfair treatment" by the media was justified by Hillary Clinton. One female politician accused Hillary of "whining" instead of "working harder" to prove herself. That politician was none other than Sarah Palin herself.

So here it is, from last March, Sarah Palin fielding a question about Hillary Clinton being unfairly treated in the press:

So Sarah, if you're reading this in your "sequestered bubble" somewhere deep inside the bunker of the McCain Campaign, I'd just like to say, "Way to carry the torch of strength and perseverenece for women everywhere!"

OBAMA'S RESPONSE TO "LIPSTICK OUTRAGE"

Thanks to The Jed Report for this clip. It's weird that the "adult" in this race is 47 years-old, while the "child" is 72.

IS THIS HOW LOST WE ARE AS A PEOPLE?!

With all the problems going on in our country, we're seriously talking about Obama's use of the common colloquialism "Lipstick on a pig?" It friggin' DOMINATED an entire evening of National News when we could have been talking about anything else that mattered?!

Obama was talking about John McCain's new "change" theme, even though he hasn't changed one thing about his stance on issues since last spring, when he uttered, "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." He then continued, "You can wrap a fish in some new paper, but it's still going to smell."

The McCain Campaign continues to assert that Obama was somehow referencing the Vice Presidential running mate Sarah Palin, even though the set-up clearly attacked McCain's George Bush-like stance on the issues.

Another problem, McCain himself used this reference less than a year ago concerning Hillary Clinton's health care plan:

Was McCain calling Clinton a "pig"? No. Did one of his supporters call Hillary a "bitch" while McCain laughed? Yes.

This crap is some crappy crap. And McCain smells like that crap... that is so very crappy.

MATT DAMON CRITICIZES PALIN PICK - PRONOUNCES "NUCLEAR" CORRECTLY

Can he be our next President? Please?

MATT DAMON FUN FACT: Attended Harvard University, but deferred classes to pursue an acting career.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN ON LETTERMAN

IS CARL CAMERON THE WORST REPORTER EVER?

Let me just say this, I have a very limited knowledge of every reporter who's ever worked throughout the history of the press - but I can still say, without exception, that Carl Cameron is the WORST REPORTER EVER!

Who else would write a phony article about John Kerry that "accidentally" got published on FoxNews.com prior to the 2004 election?

Who else would run defense for Dubya's drunk driving story during the 2000 election?

Who else would make up quotes from politicians to skew their reporting?

Who else would coach and generally "ass kiss" an interview subject moments before going on air?

First, take a looks at the Sarah Palin "Stopping the Bridge to Nowhere" commercial that's getting attention:

Now take a look at Cameron's report:
Now let's be perfectly clear about this shoddy reporting. The piece is discussing the Obama Campaign's accusation of lying when the McCain camp claims that Palin "stopped" The Bridge to Nowhere.

LIE #1: Cameron claims "It's not an easy one to straighten out" and that there's a lot of "nuance" involved.
TRUTH: It's actually quite clear and straightforward. Palin simply never "stopped" the bridge at all - and in fact supported it even after the Federal Dollars were pulled from the project.

LIE #2: Cameron says that when Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, the bridge started to become "the buzz" about congressional spending.

TRUTH: Palin ended her Mayorship of Wasilla in 2002. The bridge funding came under scrutiny in 2005, and was not even introduced for funding while she was Mayor.

LIE#3: Cameron claims that "while she was campaigning for Governor, she said there needed to be a link" between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Notice how Cameron uses the word "link" to imply that Palin didn't necessarily support the bridge, but the FACTS prove otherwise.

TRUTH: Palin actually said this in the fall of 2006:

"We need to come to the defense of southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table, like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative."

And here she is (in 2006 during the debates for Governor) talking about spending money to build an approach road to the future bridge. She talks about "progress" and in no way opposes the building of the bridge. Notice her opponent's comments?

LIE #4: Cameron claims that because Palin said "There should be some kind of access", that's why the Obama Campaign is calling it a lie.
TRUTH: Palin never publicly spoke against the bridge - AT ALL, let alone "stopped" it. In fact, even when the funds were pulled and the project was doomed, she said this in Sept. 2007:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Again, no mention of anything except disappointment that "inaccurate portrayals" killed the bridge project. The was not an active decision by her to "stop" anything. Rather, it's an "Aw shucks, the party's over everyone," response. To say that she "stopped" the bridge is, in fact, a lie.

So how about reading her actual quotes for a change Carl? You say, "She can point to a number of things she did and said to show she was against it." So where exactly are they? Why not read them on the air?

LIE #5: Cameron claims that "Governors and State Officials" don't ask for earmarks.

TRUTH: When she was Mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist to secure earmarks for her town, and succeeded with $27 million Federal Dollars over four years. Then in February of this year, Palin sent a 70-page memo to Senator Ted Stevens outlining nearly $200 million in earmark requests. Would you consider that "asking" Carl?

Is it any wonder why Fox News' viewers are the least informed audience on what's actually going on in the world?

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION IN 60 SECONDS

Wait, they forgot "Drill, baby, drill"?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Like him or not, Thomas Friedman seems to have some impressive insight into the future of world economics. His 2005 book, The World is Flat, is a detailed look into what modern technology is doing to global markets. In it he subscribes to the idea that future employees will not be hindered by working other continents from their employers. It's an idea that's already seen today in the multitude of American companies that use Chinese and Indian labor for customer support and manufacturing.

His new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, is a wake up call for a world that's not properly addressing our current energy crisis. On yesterday's Meet the Press, he speaks about "Energy Technology" and how it has the potential to solve not only America's energy issues, but also it's economic ones as well. Here's the interview:

It's clear that Friedman doesn't subscribe to the "Drill, baby, drill," chant of the RNC faithful. And he also had an interesting op/ed piece in the New York Times about McCain's voting problems on new energy.

WHAT DO RODNEY DANGERFIELD AND SARAH PALIN HAVE IN COMMON?

In the 1986 comedy classic Back to School, Rodney Dangerfield plays Thorton Melon, an uneducated rich guy who crams incessantly for two weeks in hopes of passing a rigorous question/answer session to stay in college. The montage of Dangerfield drinking coffee in the shower as he studies, listening to books on tape as he sleeps, and being tutored as staggers around campus in a daze are funny as hell. In the end, Melon pulls an answer out of his ass at the last minute and succeeds like all "fish out of water" protagonists do in these movies.

But will it work in real life?

According to the Washington Post, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is going through similar intensive study sessions in order to bring her up to speed on vital foreign policy issues. Apparently, people like Senator Joe Lieberman hope to "cram" two decades of worth of information into Palin's brain in hopes of having her field questions from reporters, and debate Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Until then, Palin is strangely absent from all shows that would seek to inform the American people about her qualifications for the 2nd most important position in America.

People may question Barack Obama's qualifications for the job, but at least he's made his views crystal clear to the American people, and subjected himself to reporters questions from the very beginning of his campaign.

So while Republicans hate the Showbiz "elites", they're no doubt hoping that Palin can emulate a Hollywood ending of her own by seeming credible on world politics at a time when, as John McCain has said:

"... I think that national security is an underlying issue because we have just found out in the last few days that we live in a very dangerous world. And there are situations which can arise which are not readily foreseen, certainly not by average citizens who are going about their daily lives, that in my view require experience, knowledge, and judgment."

Isn't it nice to know that this "experience, knowledge and judgment" can be achieved in just two weeks of the McCain Campaign's intensive study program? Whew... I know I'll sleep better tonight.

FACTCHECK.ORG TAKES ON THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan site that simply holds politicians accountable for the lies and misleading statements they tell the American people. Here's a few "whoppers" from the RNC Convention:

Mike Huckabee:

He told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.

Sarah Palin:

Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

As as been stated before, her town of roughly 5,000 received 27 million in earmarks and was even attacked by McCain himself as a prime example of wasteful spending.

Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

How about ethics reform? Major law? These searches took me 60 seconds TOTAL to find two. Is anyone supposed to believe that Palin's speechwriter couldn't find this stuff? Do they have no shame?

Rudy Giuliani:

Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

Wait a minute, are you telling me that a serial adulterer who's not on speaking terms with his kids can lie? I love that this guy makes a living off an American Tragedy, and of one of his biggest failures.

And now for the biggest LIAR of them all... Johnny "Keating Five" McCain:

McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

Anyone with insurance knows that there's already someone between you and your doctor when making medical decisions. The real question is whether you'd rather have someone thinking about profit margins during these decisions, or what's best for your health?

McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

This is what we call a good "old fashioned" lie. John says "up", reality says "down". He's either dishonest, or too old to know better. You choose.

He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.

Again, McCain has missed EIGHT VOTES on new energy in the last 12 months. This man shouldn't be allowed to even speak of "alternative fuels" until he shows up (at his job) to discuss it ONCE.

He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.

We're several TRILLION in the red - and yet McCain still drags out that friggin' "Bear DNA" project that cost us 3 million dollars. It's like trying to put out a forest fire with an eyedropper. If he wants to keep Bush's tax cuts, he's gonna have to cut something huge - like Social Security perhaps? And yet he'll never risk those votes while running. Until then, he's happy with a plan that MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!

All these facts are broken down in great detail at this site. I would recommend it to anyone on either side of the aisle, and would even point people to Obama's speech page too. Without knowing the whole truth, we allow misinformation to cloud the some of the most important decisions we'll ever make.

McGOLLUM

With each passing day, McCain is doing more and more to prove that he'll do absolutely ANYTHING to win the Presidency.

- He's flopped on abortion.
- He flopped on those "agents of intolerance" he now loves.
- He flopped on Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
- He flopped on torture. (That's right, by the current U.S. standards, McCain wasn't really tortured in Vietnam)
- He flopped on offshore drilling.
- He's now hired the same team who smeared he and his family for Dubya in 2000.
- Now it's reported that McCain wanted Lieberman, Romney, or Pawlenty - but was pressured into selecting Sarah Palin by his campaign advisers. The very same advisers who limit his media time and cell phone use.

This guy's starting to remind me of someone...

PALING FLOATS THE "COMMUNITY ORGANIZER" INSULT AGAIN

I just watched a stump speech from McCain/Palin as they simply reworked their convention speeches and read from note cards instead of a teleprompter. Apparently the latter works better for Palin as she struggled a bit the second time through the material. One passage of note is that Palin again compared her Mayorship of Wasilla, Alaska in 1996 to Obama's community organizing gig of the mid-80's, by saying:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

Does the Republican Party even know that a majority of community organization groups are heavily affiliated with churches and other religious groups? Are these the people McCain wants to mock? I guess even with the outrage of many community organizers all over the country, the McCain Campaign still feels like this is a noteworthy comparison.

So let's take a look at Sarah Palin's "actual responsibilities" while Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. She was elected in 1996 to lead a town of roughly five-thousand (population 5,469 as of the 2000 census) after receiving 616 votes.

Upon taking office, Palin asked nearly all the city department heads to resign, in retaliation for their support of her opponent. During this time, she also instructed all of her department heads that they needed her permission to speak with the press. Here's the opinion of a local reporter at the time:

"She flew in there like a big-city gal, which she's not. It was a strange time, and [the Frontiersman] came out very harshly against her."

Her next order of business was inquiring how she could go about banning books from the local library. When the long-time librarian pushed back, she was fired a few months later. The reason given? Palin felt that the librarian didn't "fully support" her as Mayor. However the residents of Wasilla came to the librarian's defense, and eventually she was reinstated.

So how did the citizens of Wasilla react to these firings and governmental shake ups? Here's an insight from a local resident who knows Mrs. Palin:

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Am I reading this correctly? It would seem that the majority of the "actual responsibilities" Palin speaks of, were actually handled by someone else?

So what do you call a Mayor without "actual responsibilities"? Would "community organizer" work?

By the way, if you'd like to read that local resident's personal opinion of Sarah Palin. You can see it HERE. With the way the McCain Campaign is sheltering Palin, it might be the only insight you get into her.

TOM RIDGE WITH A FREUDIAN SLIP FOR THE AGES!

AT LEAST CINDY McCAIN IS CLEAR WHERE HER HUSBAND STANDS ON ABORTION, RIGHT?

Man, she even succeeds in confusing her OWN stand on the issue.

Wow, I guess keeping up with all John's flip flops takes a toll!

MITT, YOU DUMB DOUCHEBAG!

Wow! Sorry to be so blunt - but it had to be said. Mitt stood in front of the Republican National Convention last night, and said this:

And I have one more recommendation for energy conservation — let’s keep Al Gore’s private jet on the ground!

Take a look:

One problem Mitt, ThinkProgress contacted Al Gore's people and they replied:

"Gore doesn't own a jet."

Oooops. But you know who DOES own a private jet? John & Cindy McCain - that's who.

Wow, for a guy with $250 million dollars, you'd think you could hire a researcher or two.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF McCAIN PUTTING "COUNTRY FIRST"?

In an interview with ABC News, McCain said this about Osama bin Laden:

"President Clinton had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. President Bush had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. I know how to do it and I'll do it," he told ABC's "World News" in an interview."

Now let's just say for the sake of argument that John McCain actually knows how to get bin Laden, a terrorist leader who's remained free some seven years after Dubya made his "Dead of Alive" comments. What does it say about him that he's never shared this "success strategy" with his good friend in the White House?

That's right, he's holding the American people hostage for his secret "bin Laden plan". Vote him in, and he'll give it to you. But don't vote him in, and he'll continue to sit on his hands.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think "the secret" involves that Iraq-Pakistan border area McCain spoke of a few weeks ago?

THE DAILY SHOW DOES "REPUBLICAN HYPOCRACY"

GETTING TO KNOW SARAH PALIN

Sarah Palin is running as a reformer who, like John McCain, is against wasteful earmarks. The only problem? She's got almost no record of actually doing what she's saying.

As has already been touched on, Palin is still openly lying about her "Thanks but no thanks" attitude towards the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere".

In fact, in 2001 and 2002 John McCain actually criticized earmarks secured by Palin for Wasilla, Alaska.

In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.

Hmmm, mixed messages? And just in case you're not completely convinced that Palin took part in the earmarks for her town. Here's this released "official memorandum" from Palin's Office, where she circles the 2.5 million federal dollars her town received and writes:

FYI This does not include our nearly one million Dollars from the Feds for our Airport Paving Project. We did well!!!

And before you ask... yes she did use THREE exclamation marks to accentuate her approval of earmarks. Seems like someone might be a government teet sucker in reformer's clothing?

Here's the scanned document:

MIXED MESSAGES AT THE RNC CONVENTION

Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani said something interesting tonight in his speech at the Republican National Convention. In mentioning John McCain's time as a Prisoner of War, and subsequent refusal of early release, he applauded his decision with these words:

"Because this is a man who believes in serving a cause greater than self-interest."

This sentiment has, in fact, become an unofficial slogan of the McCain campaign - and it's one that I think most of America would applaud. Which is maybe why I was left scratching my head when Guiliani decided to mock Barack Obama as a "community organizer" to the guffaws of the convention hall.

Then, as if to drive this point home, Sarah Palin decided to hit the sarcastic "community organizer" note TWICE in her speech? It clearly seemed to be a talking point the McCain Campaign decided to (in their minds) exploit, but I still can't figure out why?

For a little perspective, let's a closer look at what the RNC finds so funny, shall we?

In 1985, at age 24, Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia University and was working for a New York business consultant. Possibly seeking "something greater than his own self-interest", he decided to pack up his bags and move to Chicago to become an organizer for a South Side community group. His $13,000 annual salary was no doubt a pay cut from his New York job, and yet he stayed there three long years.

The experience of connecting with everyday people, helping with their struggles, and trying to improve the community left it's mark on him. As he puts it:

"I grew up to be a man, right here, in this area. It's as a consequence of working with this organization and this community that I found my calling. There was something more than making money and getting a fancy degree. The measure of my life would be public service."

At age 27, Obama left Chicago with an eye toward helping people on a larger scale. He returned to Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law School, and continued his life of public service to the people of Illinois.

I guess my question to Guiliani, Palin, and the rest of the RNC faithful is, "What's so funny about community organizing for someone trying to find themselves in their mid-twenties?" Does this not live up to the standard that McCain speaks of?

The RNC loves to show images of hard-working, God-loving familes and talk about their struggles to succeed in achieving the American dream. Yet Obama's service in helping these very same people use their organized churches to transform their broken communities is somehow a punch line?

The man had a degree from one of the most prestigious Universities in the world, and could have no doubt accepted any number of lucrative jobs. Yet he decided to work for peanuts and drive around a dangerous area of Chicago to help his fellow man.

Just for clarification, in Guiliani's mid-20's, instead of serving in Vietnam, he put his law degree to work clerking for a United States District Judge. It was the first step in a long and fruitful legal career for him.

In Palin's mid-20's, she put her communications degree to work as a sports reporter at a local news station and dreamed of being on ESPN.

So why was this "community organizer" dig considered such a successful attack for these two? Do Republicans somehow not agree with John McCain's own slogan? Should other young people avoid such community service for fear of being laughed at? The message seems murky. And confusing. And insulting.

McCAIN CONTINUES TO LIE ABOUT OBAMA'S TAX PLAN

From FactCheck.org, here's a post called A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern which explains the McCain Campaign's "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan.

The bottom line? Obama is better on taxes for 95% of America, and McCain wants to continue the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts indefinitely.

So what happens when you can't win a campaign based on the issues? That's simple. You make it a popularity contest! No kidding. This is what McCain's Campaign Manager, Rick Davis said yesterday:

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Over and over, the Amercian people have told these candidates that issues like the economy, energy policies, the War on Terror, and health care are most important to them, and yet this is the McCain Campaign's response? Is it any wonder why McCain made a "personality pick" for his running mate? Heck, even Karl Rove seems to be in the camp that says McCain made a "brilliant political decision", rather than one that would be best for the country.

Obama's campaign manager said this in response:

"We appreciate Senator McCain's campaign manager finally admitting that his campaign is not in fact about the issues the American people care about, which is exactly the kind of cynical old politics people are ready to change."

Can we tear down McCain's "Country First" banners yet?

ARE THE REPUBLICAN'S CREATING MYTHICAL GOVERNORS?

What do you get when you cross Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty? I think somebody missed their "talking points"!

JOHN McCAIN CANCELS ON LARRY KING BECAUSE OF TOUGH INTERVIEW

On Monday afternoon, CNN anchor Campbell Scott had this exchange with McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds:

Okay, so she didn't take lame "talking points" at face value. Isn't this what we should expect from our media when making an important choice for the American people? Well, John McCain thought this "attack" was so outrageous, he canceled a scheduled interview with Larry King. Hey John, how about going on Larry King and defending your decisions with some "straight talk"?

I mean, if John McCain can't stand up to Larry King, how's he gonna stand up to the terrorists?

TODAY: PALIN RAILS AGAINST EARMARKS - FOUR YEARS AGO: SECURED MILLIONS IN EARMARKS FOR HER TOWN

So let's get this straight. First Governor Palin claims to have been against "The Bridge to Nowhere", even though the facts don't support it. Now we find out the "anti-earmark" candidate secured some $27 million in earmarks for her 6,700 person town of Wasilla, Alaska in just four years? That's over four-thousand dollars of federal money per resident. She even hired a lobbying firm to help secure more dollars.

Again, am I somehow missing the "reform" in the reform candidate? And if she's weak on this, what exactly is she bringing to the table over more experienced Republicans?

ONE OF MANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES

When yesterday's news about Governor Palin's daughter broke, Barack Obama was quick to react. On the way to a speaking engagement, he pulled the press aside and issued this statement:

Now whatever you think of the message, it would seem (from first glance) that this is an unrehearsed, honest, and well-spoken message about Obama and his views towards stories like these.

However in subsequent interviews with McCain's campaign officials, members of the Alaska delegation at the convention, and general right-wing "talking heads", the same points kept being brought up on the subject. And I don't mean general points - I'm talking word-for-word responses. Like an army of androids, programmed to deliver a specific message and unwilling to waiver. This type of "on message" responses have always bothered me, and left me with little doubt that this is a coordinated effort to stifle individual (and sometimes too candid) responses.

Well today, Marc Ambinder reports that such a "script" indeed exists. And here it is:

> INTERNAL DOCUMENT - NOT TO BE EMAILED BEYOND CURRENT
> DISTRIBUTION LIST
>
> Please see the following points on Gov. Palin's family.
>
> * Governor Palin and her husband Todd have a loving family
> and their children mean everything to them. When their
> oldest daughter Bristol came to them with news that she was
> expecting a child they embraced her and gave her nothing but
> unconditional love and support.
>
> * This is a very personal matter for the family. We should
> all respect the love they have for the child and the desire
> all parents would have for their children's privacy.
>
> * The media should respect Bristol's privacy.
> That's always been the tradition and practice when it
> comes to the children of candidates.
>
> * (If pressed) The children of candidates do not choose to
> run for office and be thrust into the spotlight.

Is it any wonder these right-wingers hate Clinton and Obama for being masters of "the spoken word"?

By the way, this "children off limits" attitude of the RNC makes me think of McCain's own tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton in 1998. At a Republican fundraiser, McCain "delighted" the audience with this knee-slapper:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

Was Chelsea deserving of being "thrust into the spotlight" for this tasteless attempt at humor?

SCARBOROUGH AND BUCHANAN WEIGH IN ON PALIN PRIOR TO V.P. PICK

Here's video from Friday morning, just hours before Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's Vice Presidential Candidate. It's nice to see some "straight talk" from these two. I just wonder if they've changed their tune in recent days?

McCAIN: HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT

Here's McCain discussing the failure of then FEMA Director (and former Arabian Horse Association Commissioner) Michael Brown. While watching this, keep in mind that over 1,800 people lost their lives due to Hurricane Katrina, and McCain said this just one month after the devastation.