McSAME TRUSTWORTHY? HA HA HA!

"Senator Obama's word is not to be trusted." John "McBush" McCain

McCain flip-flops.

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:

* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.

* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

source: Steve Bensen | Carpetbagger Report

DOH!

excerpt:

Let's go back a few years to the 1990's, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy supplier. That's when he told the oil industry that, "By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Fast forward to Cheney's first heady days in the White House. The oil industry and other energy conglomerates were handed backdoor keys to the White House, and their CEO's and lobbyists were trooping in and out for meetings with their old pal, now Vice President Cheney. The meetings were secret, conducted under tight security, but as we reported five years ago, among the documents that turned up from some of those meetings were maps of oil fields in Iraq - and a list of companies who wanted access to them. The conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club filed suit to try to find out who attended the meetings and what was discussed, but the White House fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the press and public from learning the whole truth.

Think about it. These secret meetings took place six months before 9/11, two years before Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. We still don't know what they were about. What we know is that this is the oil industry that's enjoying swollen profits these days. It would be laughable if it weren't so painful to remember that their erstwhile cheerleader for invading Iraq - the press mogul Rupert Murdoch - once said that a successful war there would bring us $20-a-barrel oil. The last time we looked, it was more than $140 a barrel. Where are you, Rupert, when the facts need checking and the predictions are revisited?

It Was Oil, All Along
Saturday 28 June 2008
by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

NIHILISTS

TACKING LEFT AND RIGHT

McCANT

McCrazy McSame the McBush Trifecta

Senior Moments:

Bald liar:

IN A NUT SHELL

FIGHT THE OBAMA SMEARS

Fight the Smears

John_McCain_vs._the_Fact_Checkers

Polling before and after Kentucky's May 20 primary showed that Obama's race was a big issue for voters in Kentucky. In a Herald-Leader/WKYT Election Poll, more than one of five said it would make him less electable; an exit poll by the Associated Press found a similar response. Of those respondents, only a third said they'd vote for Obama in a general election. Nearly half of white voters said Wright's comments were important or very important to them.

The race issue is complicated by false, but rampant, rumors that Obama is Muslim. In Leslie County, a Republican county where Obama won 5 percent of the Democratic vote, the county judge-executive doesn't hesitate before mischaracterizing Obama's religion.

"I think one of the big problems for him is he's Muslim," said Jimmy Sizemore, the highest elected official in the county. "It's his religion, plus when his pastor came out and started talking, that was a problem, but that's just my opinion.

"I don't think it's because he's black, what everybody says is he is a Muslim."

When asked if he had ever researched the fact that Obama -- and the Rev. Wright -- are Christians, Sizemore said: "I don't care about finding out because I'm a Republican." (Lexington Herald-Leader)

HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE

Okay, what's all this about our Iraq mission swinging about the number of casualties?

McCain offers a conception of protecting national security by keeping thousands upon thousands of soldiers in places where they do not take casualties. So it is that, once victory is achieved, Iraq is, in McCain's words, just like S.Korea and Germany. Like those two locales our peaceful presence will be required indefinitely to...ummm...you know to be able to do something.

But what?

This comes down to a definition of victory by implication: we beat our foes and stick around. If we can't beat our foes quickly, we still stick around so we can beat our foes slowly. And when we win, we still stick around. Heads I win, tails you lose. The McCrazy strategy to stay in Iraq for 100 years or forever, whichever takes longest.

Joseph BH McMillan, a philosopher, over at The Political Conservative, offered a recent headline: We’ll Occupy You For a Hundred Years – If You’ll Just Stop Killing Us.

McMillan:

To tell a people that the occupation of their country will continue only if they refrain from fighting for their freedom is utter lunacy.

His point wasn't taken very well by his readership, even if it is completely logical, even unassailable.

McCain should be pressed from all directions on his whacky reasoning. For example, the US's presence in Germany, is it justifiable in any military sense? It's light duty; no casualties--but why is it so?

Germany's hosting of the US military has a historical context. This context was/is categorically different than that of Iraq. Germany was a defeated European state that had been a democracy; was disarmed completely after their defeat; was not riven or ruled by factions; and, then Germany evolved into a frontline of a confrontation which did not happen.

Whereas in Iraq, the US is basically--today--taking sides in a low grade civil conflict that does not promise the stability of either Germany or South Korea. The US wants Iraq to be democratic only if the elected government supports or interests. 1,000,000 plus Iraqis have been killed or injured after Iraq's dictatorship was defeated. ...not much like Germany.

Our ground presence in South Korea is probably pointless because any attempt on the part of the North Koreans to invade South Korea will follow their unleashing hundreds of thousands of shells and rockets, and likely could only be beaten back by using tactical nuclear weapons launched from submarines. If the US is the protector of Iraq in similar terms, McCain should say so, and say also how many casualties he'd allow the US to take should Iraq be invaded by North Korea, errr, somebody.

On the other hand, if one wants to take a realistic neocolonial attitude toward Iraq, then it might be most honest to confess that the US will be in Iraq irrespective of rising or falling casualties simply because Iraq provides such a great platform to protect US energy and security interests.

This argument has its own problems but at least it's defensible.

McSame really needs to be asked what the mission of the US is today, and what it will evolve to be in the future.

It seems to be the mission of the military is to kill enemies and casualties are always at risk in doing so. Planting forces in places where there is little risk seems backwards. If the US isn't taking casualties in Iraq then it's possible they might be sent to where enemies need to be killed.

McCain's illogic and ignorance and attempts to defy his critics commonsense arguments are much more scary than what could have been: scary yet realistic talk about how to use the military to effectively eliminate threats.

JUST A LIAR

McSame McCrazy has taken to a new strategy recently. When confronted with evidence that he said something he wishes he hadn't said, he simply states that he didn't say it!

Golden Oldies:

NOT THAT LOYAL

“I am very angry at the way Hillary has been treated by the Democratic Party during the last three months. When Hillary was winning the majority of the primaries, the superdelegates were flocking to Obama. The Democratic professionals wanted to please Obama more than Hillary because they valued his supporters more than Hillary’s. I have said that I would do anything in my limited capacity to destroy Obama’s candidacy (who I do not like because of his trashing of Bill Clinton and his accomplishments as president) and the best way to do that is to vote for McCain. It is an emotional not rational vote. My loyalty is to Hillary not the Democratic Party.”
>Reba Shimansky is a renowned… Democratic pundit and activist.Reported by Mark Halperin @Time/CNN

At hillaryclintonforum.net, a site at which I have become a voyeur of its weirdness, the two most popular ideas are Operation Takedown, the plan to not vote for Obama (Nobama!) and support of a McCain/Clinton ticket.

Some funny posts there squaring the gulf between McCain and Clinton policies. The main beefs against the Obama nomination are:

1) Decided by superdelegates not doing their kob of backing the most electable
2) Obama's control of the male party top level infrastructure and their misogyny and dominance
3) Obama's being a racist because black people vote for him for no other reason than his skin color
4) Obama being close to terrorist Bill Ayers; close to USA hater Jeremiah Wright, and having a Muslim father
5) Obama having laundered money. used Rezko, and joined the corrupt Dem politics of Chicagoland
6) Hillary getting piled on by the media

etc., and other such nonsense.

Needless to say if the shoe were on the other foot they wouldn't be complaining at all.

Super grumpy and apparently mostly irrational.

8 MONTHS

Obamain30seconds

THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER!

Comment from the WAPO article, Clinton's Endgame.

U.S. presidency is no job for an unqualified shyster as Obama with his racist and sexist baggage. Recently, he has gotten the unprincipled endorsements of superdelegates who lacked integrity and repudiated their true function, making the purpose of the superdelegates completely meaningless. The superdelegates endorsing Obama are backing a losing horse incapable of winning the general election. If the superdelegates give Obama the nomination, I cannot wait to begin working for his defeat and vote for McCain in a swing state.

The pro-Obama biased media have interfered in, undermined, and subverted the Democratic presidential nominating process. The pro-Obama biased,sexist media continue to sabotage Sen. Clinton's campaign with impunity. The pro-Obama biased media are out of control. This media tyranny is our democracy's worse enemy.

Superdelegates are mandated to select the best qualified and strongest candidate to win the general election without regard to any "delegate math." Sen. Clinton is winning the popular vote and she is the best qualified and the strongest candidate to defeat McCain and win the general election in a landslide victory. The facts of her winning strengths were stated to the superdelegates in an eleven-page letter from Sen. Clinton. Obama had no similar letter to the superdelegates because he lacked winning strengths; Obama's only "strength" is a bandwagon linked to rhetoric that will end up in a train wreck for the Democratic Party.

After the primaries end on Tuesday, uncommitted superdelegates with independent judgment, reflecting wisdom, integrity, and courage, have the responsibility to overwhelmingly endorse Sen. Clinton for the nomination, making her the Democratic presidential nominee. Sen. Clinton will defeat McCain, and she will win the general election in a landslide victory hands down. Sen. Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

Posted by: crat3 | June 2, 2008 1:04 PM

Lessee: paranoid, feeling victimized, delusion of conspiracy; and, for all that, at least crat3 has managed to regurgitate the popular vote spin. My favorite, as somebody who studies how adults operationalize propositions and how they make attributions about 'other minds' and how the world works, is the posit about how Obama voluntarily took himself off the Michigan ballot and so he now gets his just dessert.

HILLARYCLINTONFORUM.NET

Since I recently discovered it, the HCF has provided lots of material. I guess it has to be the central hangout for Clinton supporters who support The Hillary because she's, well, The Hillary, and no other considerations matter at all. When the HCF crew isn't paranoid in building a conspiratorial geometry out of the media, DNC, and Obama supporters, they're plotting vindictive fantasies to stick it to the Democratic Party.

What is weirdest of all is that there is no discussion about differences of opinion; it's completely: you're either with us or against us.

SUPRA5667
Each day Hillary Clinton grows legendary.. The savior of democracy.

DONNA
The Democratic party has become a bunch of elitists.... they have
forgotten the people who are the backbone of this country!!
Hillary represents us! She represents what the democratic party used to be!
I think Hillary should run on an Independent ticket......a new party with a new
symbol representing democracy!
I am now an Independent!!!

RAYinAR
I think we should all contact and keep contacting the DNC to let them know we will be leaving this party. But they left us first. The independent party will grow and grow. The Democratic Pary is now DEAD. May it never rest in peace.

ScottVA
I'm going to stay Dem here in VA that way they think they've got my vote! LOL My partner and I will fundraise and vote for McCain here if The Great Wizard gets the DNC crown!

ReneeInFlorida
Exactly Hillary and Bill owe these Democratic traitors nothing.
Hillary please listen to us.!!! Pull a Joe Leiberman, go Independent and we are all there, we will win!!!!

DONNA
I have my paper work done and will get it mailed out Monday.......
I am an Independent and I want to explore the possiblity of
Hillary running on an Independent ticket!!

sharkeye1
Everyone, if you are going to write or call the DNC tonight/tomorrow/next week please do this one thing - try to remain rational and calm. I know how hard that will be but we have to make them understand that we are not the lot of crazies like Obama's people are. Let them know how you feel but without name calling, irrational screaming, etc.

LOL

BEAM ME UP

Courtesy of the invaluable Glenn Greenwald, a money quote from Tim Rutten, taken from his review of Scottie's What's Happening.

The news media, no less than the nation, endured a wrenching trauma on 9/11 and no less than any other institution in society felt the moral obligation to demonstrate solidarity with a country under deadly threat. In that situation, not giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, when it presented "facts" it said were based on the best and most sensitive intelligence available from the CIA and other spy agencies, would have been mindlessly adversarial.

Alternately: mindfully doing their job to provide facts counter to the snow job. Between 9-11-2001 and March 2003, a period of 18 months, a lot of information was available. But, irrespective of how gripping any of it was, two things were in the mix: what the UN inspections had found; and, whatever the counter-advocacy was on the part of the intelligence community. There was also stuff in the open source, but it isn't necessary to make the case that mindful adversarial reportage was possible.

So, it isn't a question of taking somebody's word for anything. Hundreds of thousands of wounded and maimed later, and after 30,000+ American casualties and a trillion dollars, the 'my country right or wrong' crap is in bold relief. Wrong is wrong no matter what part of the propaganda mansion has been gussied up and presented to the egotistic journalist or pundit for the sake of there being a room where all mighty access is guaranteed.

Egotistical sucking at the propaganda teet isn't defensible. It's not for nothing that the mainstream media, as Greenwald has reported for years, maintains the strongest tendency to cover its ass.

McClellan was looking at a naked emperor for years. It's not so much that he waited but that he can't admit he was consciously complicit from day one. The WH Press Secretary is a propagandist. Tis his job.

TRUE BLUE OR TRUE TO THE BONE?

For months now, smug condescending, self righteous Obamabots have been calling for Senator Clinton to drop out. They have resorted to personal attacks, character assassination, and ugly insults, rather than addressing the issues … and, disregarding, and disrespecting the 17 million Clinton supporters, as if we don’t even exist, or don’t even count. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, I urge fellow Clinton supporters to respond by voting for John McCain in November, as well as voting the super delegates, who jumped Hillary’s ship, out of office.
— Posted by Lee Posted at The New York Times

Over at the sour hillaryclintonforum.net, a busy albeit unofficial catch basin for all things The Hillary, the mission to swing the November vote to McCain as a matter of revenge and spite is called Operation Takedown.

From the NYT comment thread:

I believe in Hillary 100% and think she stands a good chance of winning the nomination. If for some reason she does not make it, I will Never vote for barack obama and thats a promise.
— Posted by brigitte

100% is a lot!

Hillary Clinton can run as an Independent and win!
Hillary ‘08!!!
— Posted by MoeB.

That would be something.

I’m glad that Senator Clinton is fighting on. The process isn’t closed until the nominee is named at the convention. That she is showing such strength in the face of massive and vicious pressure reassures me that she has the fire, wisdom and grit to lead this country. The extended primary season is an opportunity for both candidates to show their mettle. I, for one, am inspired by Senator Clinton.
— Posted by Rhoda Bodzin

The basic problem is: The Hillary has lost a squeaker. And, it doesn't matter that anybody can make a credible argument about her electoral electability because such an interpretation runs up against counter interpretations just as worthwhile.

Obviously, were the glittering shoes on The Hillary's feet all her supporters, and, Billary, would be arguing for the hopelessness of Obama's cause and, especially, arguing against the Supers overturning the 'will of the people,' or whatever you wish to term a slim majority.

Of course Obama hasn't had to offer up any tortured math at all. He fought hard in red states and this has turned out to be a winning strategy unforeseen by Clinton, who spent way too long imagining that she was going to roll to a nomination. She may be gritty and tough and relentless but her campaign strategy has turned out to be the main reason she has lost.

As for her supporters who are so fused to the cause that they would slice off their noses to spite their faces: one wonders what will happen when their Queen asks them to vote for Mr. Obama. If it turns out Hillary's supporters cost Obama the election, then both The Hillary and her supporters will go down in history. And, probably this will doom her chances in 2012.

PALE AND BEYOND THE PALE

Irony of ironies, it turns out that it is The Hillary who manages to implode late in the primary season, providing as she has today the terminal gaff.

She could, if she wished to and had the guts, apologize in completely concrete terms:

I apologize for unintentionally feeding the impression that I'm in the race because absolutely anything favorable for my campaign and unfavorable for Barack could happen.

She won't do this.

Over at the amazingly paranoid, conspiracy-theory fueled, home of the last of the Clinton true believers, hillaryclintonforum.net, her comments have evoked the following jaw-dropping comments.

PATRICE LA
OMG they will READ ANYTHING INTO THE SLIGHTEST COMMENT! I do NOT see anything wrong with what she said.

SANDY IN PA
She was just using the fact the he was assassinated in June as a point of reference to say that he was still in the primary race in June.

TEACHGRD3
I'm sick of Obama and his campaign flying off the handle and taking offense at innocent things.

SANDY IN PA
This wouldn't even be an issue if the Obama campaign hadn't immediately issued a statement on it so they could stir the pot.

MJNO7777
I don't understand why she apologized??? She was making a point about why she is still int he race by giving two other examples.

JOEYSKY18
Guys, she didn't do anything wrong.

SANDY IN PA
Looks like they are still quite intimidated by Hillary and still have their spies out wherever Hillary is speaking so that they report back immediately to HQ and have them issue a press release twisting her words.

WYOMING DEM
And if she does want him dead like she would ever say it out loud?
It is just ridiculous to alledge that's what she meant.

SUZAN
How ridiculous of the media to pile on this way. It's absurd. You can see that she made the comment in a very matter of fact way. There was nothing in appropriate about it. I heard it on Fox before I saw the video and I thought she'd really done something terrible. More of much ado about nothing.

SSMITH
I want that ship and all who sailed it to go down in flames.. I will be voting and campaiging for mccain..even repubs don't do this to each other..glad I am no longer a dem. only hillary supporter!

PRINCESSE JEN
The good news is it's Friday and Memorial Day weekend so people are gonna be busy and out not watching a lot of TV so I don't think this will get too much attention.

What is shocking is not that she said something knowing it could be misinterpreted, or said something unintentionally, but that she said something that she should never say for any reason. Why her comment was beyond the pale was because she picked the worst possible example for a June campaigner, and in doing so, picked the only possible example that could evoke the impression that the second place campaigner could gain from the darkest of all "game changers." And, this was the second time she chose these same two examples.

I"M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND I GET TO DECIDE

. . .what's real, or not.



Since McCain isn't dumb as cardboard, his relentless attachment to his talking point in this clip says a lot about our ability to subject ourselves to being told hooey, as well as underlining the necessary Big Lie psychology McCain is convinced is all he'll need.

If there's any one area where McSame is most like Bush it's his tenacious discipline blown as wind into his own mendacious sails.

YEARS AGO IN GERMANY

Getting Bubba

By Kathleen Parker
JewishWorldReview.com

"A full-blooded American."

That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

Whether Fry was referring to McCain's military service or Obama's Kenyan father isn't clear, but he may have hit upon something essential in this presidential race.

Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

Who "gets" America? And who doesn't?

[snip]

What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.

[snip]

Some Americans do feel antipathy toward "people who aren't like them," but that antipathy isn't about racial or ethnic differences. It is not necessary to repair antipathy appropriately directed toward people who disregard the laws of the land and who dismiss the struggles that resulted in their creation.

Full-blooded Americans get this. Those who hope to lead the nation better get it soon.

Glenn Greenwald is tracking this appalling, racist rant by Ms. Parker.

In most respects, her perspective is transparently fashioned in the time-dishonored code of white supremacy. This is horrible enough--her attempt to ice her racist cake through appealing to a claim by which some Americans get America better than others, AND, coincidently, these same citizens also get that America is better off when "blood equity" is predominant in our politics--but then she rationalizes her appeal as somehow not being about race at all.

antipathy appropriately directed toward people who disregard the laws of the land

She drops this in to let it do its work.

The Aryan German was purported to get Germany better than all non-Aryan infiltrators, and so it was a hop or two from that formula to the longstanding, equivalent white supremicist formula brought forth (mostly) in the rural backwaters of the ex-Confederacy. Ms. Parker has reprised the formula exactingly.

She gets rewarded too because soon enough she's on the WAPO editorial page gay-baiting Obama and John Edwards.

FANTASY ISLAND INDEED

McCain, McSame, McCrazy, McBush, appears to be focusing on a largely symbolic and magical appeal to the most impressionable voters. Those voters, regardless of how they are demographically or stereotypically characterized, are targets of this appeal because they are the most sympathetic to certain ideas and most resistant to other competing ideas. One way or the other they are true conservatives in the most folky sense, opting to support ideas over some of what could be--were they--their other interests.

McCain's health care plan, even if bare of actionable elements, is an exacting case in point. It's funding ideas are simple enough: personal responsibility, freedom of choice, and obedience to the profit-motivated health insurers. McCain hasn't really bolted these three aspects together in a workable mechanism for, as he puts it, reform, yet, the agenda is patently clear.

(1) Free companies from the burdens of providing health care benefits.
(2) Free insurance companies from the burden of providing non-underwritten group coverage.
(3) In emptying millions of group-covered employer-plan insurees into the marketspace, allow the actuaries and health odds-makers to, finally, separate the healthy wheat from the irresponsible chaff.

Although addressing the problem of health care access and costs was on the table, evidently for McCain the problems are different: providing health care is too expensive for companies and insurers, and thus McCain's solutions address those problems rather than the problems of access and cost.

The end result will be that many currently insured working people who have access and low-cost employer provided insurance will become uninsured. But, many companies will be freed from providing insurance so they will enjoy enhanced profits, and, presumably, insurance companies will also enjoy increased profitability as their risk pools spit out the most costly risk factors.

Question is: who in their right mind would be in favor of voting to make insurance less accessible and more costly for those tossed into the individual underwritten risk models?

Think about the answer because its ideological fundamentals are proposed by McCain to evoke a spellbound electorate ready made to embrace his absurd plan, a plan itself geared to provide billions of dollars of tax monies to one of the country's richest, most greedy industries.

Meanwhile on Iraq:

FORE! OUCH!

Bush's golf comments are reveal his psyche. Strong suggestion: incapable of empathy. Deluded about how he comes across. Mind running on narcissistic fumes.

BULLSEYE

McCain's wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.Rick Hertzberg, The New Yorker

HEAD SMACKER

"I know economics very well, certainly better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. So let's clear that up," McCain told CNN in an interview on Thursday.

"We have got to find the floor on the cost of houses. When we find the floor, then there will be people who will come in and purchase some of these at bargain rates," said McCain. (CNN)

McCain has all the makings of another petty tyrant: narcissist, arrogant, strong sense of entitlement, choleric.

As for economics, how much has he spoken about the unraveling of the economy, an unwinding that has been moving to the center of the radar screen for over a year?

Answer: almost zip.

ISSUE?

So if the US military is the greatest equal opportunity employer, then why didn't McCain pick up on the importance of Martin Luther King? Ahh, McCrazy wants it both ways methinks.

John McCain on MLK Day <> DNC Memo

1983: McCain Voted Against Law Creating National Martin Luther King Holiday. In 1983, McCain voted against passing a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That was the year the holiday was passed into law, supported by 338 members of the House and 78 members of the Senate. [1983 House Vote #289, 8/2/1983; 1983 Senate Vote #303]

1987: McCain Supports AZ Governor's Effort to Rescind Martin Luther King Day as State Holiday. In 1987, Arizona Governor Evan Mecham rescinded "what he termed an illegal executive order by his predecessor, Democrat Bruce Babbitt, to establish a state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." Speaking to the Arizona Teenage Republican Convention, when asked about Mecham's decision to rescind the holiday, "McCain said that he felt Mecham was correct in rescinding the holiday." [Washington Post, 1/14/1987; Phoenix Gazette, 4/13/1987]

1989: McCain Urged Lawmakers to Create State Holiday, But Expressed Opposition to Federal Holiday. In 1989, McCain expressed his support for a state law recognizing an Arizona Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. But, McCain said, "I'm still opposed to another federal holiday... but I support the (Arizona) Martin Luther King holiday because of the enormous proportions this issue has taken on as far as the image of our state and our treatment towards not only blacks but all minorities." [Phoenix Gazette, 5/2/1989]

1992: McCain Endorsed Proposition Creating State Holiday. "McCain endorsed Proposition 300, which would establish a paid state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." [Phoenix Gazette, 10/28/1992]

1994: McCain Voted To Strip Federal Funding From the MLK Federal Holiday Commission. In 1994, McCain voted to prohibit federal funds for the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission. The Commission was established in 1984 "to encourage the observance of King's birthday." According to Al King, head of the California chapter of the commission, the organization "helped keep 'senators' and 'representatives' feet to the fire to recognize the holiday." [1994 Senate Vote #127, 5/24/1994; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24/1995, 5/26/1995]

John McCain on the Confederate Flag

Late 1999: McCain Said He Wasn't Offended By the Flag. In 2000, McCain said of the flying of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina, "To me personally, I understand how it could be offensive to some people, but I had ancestors who fought in the Confederate army and I thought they fought honorably." [AP, 11/5/1999]

Early 2000: McCain Called The Confederate Flag "Offensive" And A Symbol Of Slavery. McCain appeared on "Face the Nation" and recognized the offensive symbolism of the Confederate flag. McCain said, "The Confederate flag is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know. It's a symbol of racism and slavery." [CBS News, Face The Nation, 1/9/00]

A Day Later, Aides Say He Misspoke. The next day, "McCain reversed himself and called the flag 'a symbol of heritage' ...Aides said he had misspoken in the television interview." [New York Times, 1/12/2000]

2006: McCain Conceded He Lied In 2000 to Win Political Points With the Confederate Flag, Called It "An Act of Cowardice." Following the 2000 South Carolina primary, McCain admitted that he had lied about his position on the confederate flag in order to win political points while battling George Bush in the South Carolina. McCain admitted, "I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary, so I chose to compromise my principles. I broke my promise to always tell the truth." Speaking on the incident in 2006, McCain went further, saying, "The flag in South Carolina. I said that that was a state issue [in 2000]. It's not a state issue. It's a symbol that should not fly over the state capitol anywhere in America. ...I said that it really wasn't any of my business, was basically what I said. That was an act of cowardice." [New York Times, 4/20/2000; CNN, 5/24/2006]

Now comes the B.S.; really outright mendacity.



Reporter: On Martin Luthor King, what do you mean you say you learned?

McCain: Well, I learned that this individual was a transcendent figure in American history. He deserved to be honored. And I thought it was appropriate to do so. In my home state of Arizona, I was not proud that we were one of the last states to recognize Dr. King's birthday as a holiday. And I was pleased to be part of the fight for that recognition.

Reporter: What didn't you know when you voted initially against it that you later knew when you changed your mind?

McCain: I had not really been involved in the issue. I just had not had a lot of experience with the issue. That's all.

Reporter: [couldn't hear question]

McCain: In Arizona, I came from the military where we are the greatest equal opportunity employer in the nation and still are. And I had just not been involved in the issue. There were issues that I had not been involved in when I was in the military, and then I went relatively quickly to being a member of Congress.

Reporter: You just didn't realize the large role in American history?

McCain: I think I just explained it about best I could.

Reporter: It's not really an issue to be involved in, to be aware of his impact on this country, it's more of a knowledge of history.

McCain: I think you're entitled to your opinion on it and I respect your opinion on that, but I had not been involved in the issue. I had come from being in the military to running for Congress in a state that did not have a large African American population.

Iraq, the Decomposition

General William Odom before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 2
Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense. To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.

Nir Rosen efore the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 2
Today Iraq does not exist. It has no government. It is like Somalia, different fiefdoms controlled by warlords and their militias.

We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization.

Contrast with anything the 'experienced' warrior John McCain is likely to say.

GENERAL MCCAIN

Lindsay Graham eats both his shoes.



Nutty. Incredible. Brain dead. Mendacious.

DOWN THE RAT HOLE

al-Maliki unleashes his Badr Corps surrogates, the Iraq Army, to squish the Sadr militias in Basra. What's the saying about 'war being politics by other means?'

The strikes reflect al-Maliki's weak position, and the non-existence of central government influence, in Sadr dominated strongholds throughout southern Iraq and Baghdad. So, al-Maliki and his own implement requisite 'janitorial' tasks in anticipation of the provincial elections in October. Time to clean up and out the Sadr faction, and the other gangsters reigning in Basra.

The US has to jump into the fray in Baghdad's Sadr City. Thus, the US is forced to pick sides in an internecine political battle, and, ironically, this means their support lines up with the Iran-aligned Badrists, the group that constitutes the main battle-hardened element of the Iraqi employment program; otherwise known as the Iraq Army.

It's really delicious from the cynic's perspective. The McCrazy Surge works because enough ethnic cleansing, Sunni CLC's, and visible US manpower in Baghdad, come together to, in effect, rout al-Q, and provide plenty of R&R ('regroup and re-arm!') for various Shi'a factions.

But then the plump milestone of Provisional Elections calls forth a violent methodology for mitigating the Sadr factor. The US chooses the side of the pseudo-national government and so, amazingly, the US is today fighting in Iraq to make it safe from Sadr--you know--Sadr, the popular leader who made a truce and moderated his stance so as to set up for his party enhanced participation in Iraq politics.

Sure, the other hand is that Basra had regressed to a wild west grotesque. Something has to be done! But, now what may well happen is that the truce will turn to ashes and the Mahdi Army will strike and evaporate in the Iraqi version of revolutionary minuteman. Can you surge that?

Who's to say. The US military may or may not have the flexibility to re-deploy significant forces from their current tasks for a long fight to the finish between al-Maliki's forces and those of Sadr. Of course there is the first Fallujah model: using it would turn Basra and Sadr City to rubble.

***

Win the Homefront "Strategy For Victory In Iraq" JohnMcCain.com

If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat. The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located. Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations. Defeat in the war would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world.

The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a constitution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope. The stakes for America could not be higher.
---
Election 2008: What's at Stake?

America faces a dangerous, relentless enemy in the War against Islamic Extremists - We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its global allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war. This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it; whether we will flinch and retreat or fully engage the enemy on multiple fronts. We need decisive leadership with the vision and experience to guide our country and the world through this challenge. Having a courageous Commander-in-Chief who is willing to lead us in this war, rally our democratic allies and defeat our enemy to secure a broader peace is what's at stake in this election.

McCrazy's rhetoric from his campaign web site.

The Pentagon has announced that al-Maliki's independent military operations signal Iraq standing up. And, this is because the surge is so successful. Now, we'll find out whether the Iraqi Army is worth a damn. Yet they won't be on their own and it will also be interesting to find out if the US support rises to the level of an intervention in support of al-Maliki's faction and sectarian self-interest.

AND IF YOU ORDER RIGHT NOW

ANYTHING TO WIN

Via youtube via CBS.

Billary's bald ambitions now lead us to the scorched earth phase of her hopeless quest to be the nominee. I used to think Hillary was okay, but after this latest episode, it seems she will boldly lie and then pedal it as misspeaking. In other words, she's a liar and unrepentant and not worthy of picking up the red phone at all.

Meanwhile she gave an interview to Dick Scaife's Pittsburgh newspaper. Who was in the room? Scaife, the guy who pulled millions of dollars out of his pocket hoping to bury the Clintons and clintonism. She used the opportunity to race bait Obama.

Stepping back from the slew of such attempts made mostly by HRD proxies, it seems black and white, if you will, to point out the obvious: the entire point is to appeal to all voters for whom Obama's race is some kind of 'issue.' It's not technically racist, but it is clearly leveraging suspicion to invigorate implicit prejudice...found in racists mild and severe.

Damn her. What a monsterous way to conduct a campaign.

MCCRAZY MEANT HIS GAFF

Posted the following in response to Glenn Greenwald's parsing of the McCrazy-al-Q-Shi'a gaff.


McCain's al-Qaida-Shi'a conflation has a long history and is especially popular among that segment of his base that believes Islam to be irredeemable. If 13% think Obama is in fact a Muslim, I'd suggest--strongly--a greater percentage believe this is a 'clash of civilizations.' This posit is popular elsewhere than in the Christian fundamentalist camps.

It goes like this:

al-Qaida enjoys support on the so-called Arab street.

Islam proffers a conception of its being the last Abrahamic revelation.

This conception makes a duty of converting the un-believer.

All Muslims are called to this unless they are themselves heretics and unbelievers.

The above conceptions enjoy support on the Arab street.

Islam is equivalent to the Arab street.

Islam wants to convert the non-believer.

Thus: IT HARDLY MATTERS WHAT THE NUANCES HAPPEN TO BE.

It would be charitable to state this is poppycock. Yet, it would be a mistake to underplay the support of the American street that is vulnerable to hooking up 'we don't do defeat' with 'Islam wishes to defeat us.'

...just my opinion, yet, McCain does seem to play to this crowd. His job is to scare enough of the middle undecideds into going along for the ride such a clash of civilzations promises.

5 INTO 100

Not many have pointed this out on this sad fifth anniversary, a day marked by McCrazy's practiced conflation, but the point of melding Iran and Al-Q is already market tested and found to be a winner among all those who lump Sunni and Shi'a together into that very bad religion Islam, the religion that wants to jet ski over to the US and convert everybody at the point of a sword.

But what's to say? McCrazy, should he become President will be the steward of a vast roiling sea of mayhem and innocent blood will splash all over him and 'his own'. This seems to me to be plain as day. If that's your bag, loony McCrazy is your man.

How's the surge doing? Our Sunni allies are growing disgruntled at US duplicity.

I TOLD YOU SO

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows
As Agency Sweeps Up Data
Terror Fight Blurs
Line Over Domain;
Tracking Email
By SIOBHAN GORMAN
March 10, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans' privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.