Palin Found Guilty of Abuse of Power

BREAKING NEWS
msnbc.com news services
updated 1 hour, 29 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain's Republican ticket.

Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.
The panel found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. "I feel vindicated," Monegan said. "It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Palin and McCain's supporters had hoped the inquiry's finding would be delayed until after the presidential election to spare her any embarrassment and to put aside an enduring distraction as she campaigns as McCain's running mate in an uphill contest against Democrat Barack Obama.

But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension.

"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.

John McCain gets bent with Iowa Reporter

McCain Economics.......Scary

John McCain the "DE regulator's" REAL motivator......PAC money!

John McCain Curses out POW's sister on C-Span

Blood Thirsty Palin......scary

Heart Rejects McCain and Palin

Republicans Lack Heart!

Ann and Nancy Wilson are pissed at the Republican Party and have fired off a cease and desist letter to the McCain/Palin campaign.

Specifically, the Heart women are upset that the GOP has used their classic "Barracuda" as a theme song for Sarah Palin. TMZ obtained a statement from Heart's rep, who says "The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission."

The statement goes on: "We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We hope our wishes will be honored."We're told Ann was watching TV today and heard the song at the convention when Palin was touted.
(Editor's thoughts= I would wager that the langage Ann used would not be suitable for publication at the time! Jackson Browne has already sued becuase they used the
song "Running On Empty" which is a great commentary of McCain policies)
http://www.tmz.com/2008/09/04/republicans-lack-heart /

Olden Boys.....Thank you for being friend....

How thoroughly did McCain's campaign vet Palin?

By Sean Cockerham | McClatchy Newspapers
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The announcement Monday by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband that their 17-year-old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock raised new questions about how thoroughly John McCain investigated the background of his vice-presidential pick. Whether the 72-year-old McCain's selection of 44-year-old Palin as his running mate was carefully considered or impulsive is a matter of growing interest.Although the Palins made their announcement in response to Internet rumors, McCain advisers said that he knew about the pregnancy before he settled on Palin, and said that Palin had been thoroughly vetted. In Alaska, however, there's little evidence of a thorough vetting process.

While it's possible that some people in Alaska were called during the process, there was no sign of it. The former U.S. attorney for Alaska, Wev Shea, who enthusiastically recommended Palin back in March, said he was never contacted with any follow-up questions.Chris Coleman, one of Palin's next-door neighbors, said that no one representing McCain spoke to him about Palin. Another neighbor also was never contacted, he said Monday.Republican Gail Phillips, a former speaker of the Alaska House, said that she was shocked by McCain's selection of Palin and told her husband, Walt, "This can't be happening because his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out." She said she would've heard had someone been poking around."We're not a very big state," Phillips said. "People I talk to would've heard something."

Walt Monegan, the commissioner of public safety whom Palin fired in July, said that no one from the McCain campaign contacted him, either. His firing is now the subject of a special legislative investigation into whether Palin or members of her administration improperly interfered with the running of his department by pushing for dismissal of a state trooper involved in a divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister.The FBI declined to say whether it conducted a full-field investigation of Palin's background before McCain tapped her as his running mate. FBI spokesman Richard Kolko referred callers to the McCain campaign.

Previous vice-presidential picks — even those with long records in national politics — have come under much closer scrutiny. In 2000, Democratic nominee Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman after a vetting process that lasted about 10 months, including poring through some 800 legal opinions Lieberman had been involved with as Connecticut Attorney General.Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was asked Monday as he walked through the Xcel Center in St. Paul if he was satisfied with Palin's vetting. "I'm not gonna get into that," he said.As their national convention got under way Monday, Republicans stood by Palin and tried to make the media coverage, rather than McCain's decision-making, the issue.

"We're asking the media to respect a person's privacy," said Maria Comella, Palin's campaign spokesman.A McCain adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, called the Palin pregnancy a family matter "best left to them."McCain's Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, said the reports about her daughter's pregnancy have no relevance to the Alaska governor's potential performance as vice president."You know my mother had me when she was 18," Obama said. "And how family deals with issues and teenage children that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that is off-limits."

Delegates to the Republican convention said the pregnancy should have no impact on the McCain campaign. Tom Azinger, a delegate from West Virginia, said it "will backfire" on anyone who makes it an issue. Ralph Seekins, an Alaska delegate, said families would identify with the challenges the Palins face."I'm proud of their daughter having to do the right thing. A lot of people would just say 'get rid of that problem,'" Seekins said. "My family's not perfect. I don't know anybody's that is. I've not even been perfect in my own life. I think people are going to understand that, even from a political standpoint."

However, Sherry Whistine, a Republican conservative blogger from Palin's home area of Wasilla, said that she can't believe how Palin could accept the nomination knowing that doing so would shine a spotlight on her daughter."What kind of woman, knowing all of this, knowing this is happening, would put her children in the position where the whole world, the whole nation, is going to see the uglies?" she said.

(Cockerham reports for the Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage Daily News reporters Richard Mauer and Zaz Hollander in Anchorage, David Lightman, Steven Thomma and McClatchy intern Shawn Boonstra contributed to this article from St. Paul.)

McCain's Slip Is showing

I thought that it was priceless that in the middle of the Democractic Convention that a man who joked about a woman being raped by a gorrilla would pretend to now
be Hillary Clinton's BFF with indignant claims that "Obama passed her over for VP"!
Yeah, right......I guess he thinks that Hillary forgets the awful comments he made
about Chelsea when she was a young impressionable girl having to endure the GOP hacks like McCain making comments about her appearance!

Just what a teenager needs to get their wobbly legs planted on terra firma....NOT! NOW he picks out a complete unknown woman from Alaska because I guess he still forgets that we can Google her background and he thinks that women are so stupid that they will RUSH TO THEIR SIDE with this appointment of a woman for VP. NO WAY! Check her out....As governor of Alaska, she was "has come under the scrutiny of an investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that she ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper."

An EEOC nightmare in the making and a continuation of the same Monica Goodling
hiring practice of only hiring people who swore allegence to Bush. These guys are scary, sexist and apparently without immagination. I hope this bites him on his
elbow and shows him that women are NOT stupid. HE IS! I don't like the idea of this
woman being one heartbeat away from the Oval office with a candidate for President
who has Cancer and a swollen cheek. If he thinks Obama isn't capable with four years in the Senate, years in the Illinois State House AND a career of teaching the Constitution.....this woman isn't fit to be Barack's driver.

And None Dare Call It Treason

August 22, 2008
By Patrick Buchanan

Who is Randy Scheunemann?

He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States. But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.

He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man. From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 -- pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.

What were Mikheil's marching orders to Tbilisi's man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.

Scheunemann came close to succeeding.

Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann's client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.

U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections? Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.
That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality -- namely, that Russia's control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.

If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war. Not only did Scheunemann's two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.

Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there. The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the "near abroad" when the Soviet Union broke apart.

Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out. This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.

Scheunemann's resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9-11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9-11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.

Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain's camp. The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.

Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?

Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ... a free people ought to be constantly awake," Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc

McSame Goosesteps back to the future....

He doesn't even know how many houses he owns......DARE we let him live in another one on Pennsylvania Avenue? NO WAY!

Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: August 17, 2008
ORLANDO, Fla. — Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said. Before an audience of more than 2,000 people at the church, the candidates answered questions about policy and social issues.Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions.After Mr. Obama’s interview, he was joined briefly by Mr. McCain, and the candidates shook hands and embraced.

Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview.
(Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting)

McCain and Ralph Reed.....evil twins

McCain's Conflict of interest in a possible cold war?

(Editor's commentary)It has been no secret that John McCain's "Straight Talk Express"
has had quite a few lobbyists onboard was a real contradiction of the term epitomized with the bus's name.NOW we have McCain going after Russia taking sides in the dispute even though he has stated that he wants to keep politics out of the matter. Yeah right John. More Straight talk or is it another Lobbyist influenced tirade. Randy Scheunemann, a staff member of his campaign has been revealed to be a
former lobbyist for the Georgia until March of this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-20-mccainadviser_n.htm

Check out how he states that this "There's no room for partisanship now." Given that
you ARE running for President and your foreign issues advisor who just HAPPENED to have lobbied you as a representative for Georgia. How the HECK are you supposed to be UNBIASED with a battle between two governements if you have an advisor who up until recently was paid by them? Oh and by the way....just HOW many wars do you intend to drag us into?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican White House contender John McCain said Tuesday he would support Georgia's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) if he is elected president in November

I would move forward at the right time with the application for membership in NATO by Georgia," McCain told Fox News television.

"As you know, through the NATO membership, that if a member nation is attacked, it is viewed as an attack on all," said the Arizona senator, alluding to Russia's military aggression on Georgia.

"We don't have, I think, right now, the ability to intervene in any way except in a humanitarian, economic way, and do what we can to help the Georgians," he added.

McCain, 71, also reiterated his call for Russia to be kicked out of the Group of Eight most industrialized nations.

"Russia no longer shares any of the values and principles of the G-8, so they should be excluded," he said.

Georgia's bid to join NATO has divided the alliance. During an April summit in Bucharest, NATO leaders deferred putting Georgia and Ukraine on a formal path to membership but agreed that the two former Soviet republics "will become members" at some point.

The formula was intended as a compromise between opposing positions taken by France, Germany and several other members, and the United States, which had pushed hard on behalf of Georgia and Ukraine's NATO aspirations.

It extended no security commitments, but it may have emboldened Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his dealings with the Russians, as they stepped up pressure on Tblisi.

And it infuriated the Russians who had been given assurances that the summit would not approve a further NATO expansion into the two former Soviet republics.

To distance himself from President George W. Bush on the Georgia-Russia conflict, McCain said the US leader "probably had a higher opinion of (Russian Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin than I do."

Bush once said he that upon looking into Putin's eyes he saw "his soul" while McCain said he saw "three letters: K-- G-- B."

"Yes, I saw that," McCain said Tuesday.

Asked about his Democratic rival Barack Obama's view of the ongoing conflict in the Caucasus, McCain said he respected the Illinois senator's views, adding that he believed it "important that we act in a bipartisan fashion now.

"There's no room for partisanship now."

Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, on Tuesday read a statement blaming Russia for increasing tensions in the Caucasus.

"No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country," said Obama, 47.

"There is no possible justification for these attacks," he added.

The Angry John McCain Song

In the heart of the farmland.....McCain insults FARMERS?

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 6, 4:38 AM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa - Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes the $300 billion farm bill and subsidies for ethanol, positions that both supporters and opponents say might cost him votes he needs in the upper Midwest this November.

His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is making a more traditional regional pitch: He favors the farm bill approved by Congress this year and subsidies for the Midwest-based ethanol industry. McCain instead has promised to open new markets abroad for farmers to export their commodities.In his position papers, McCain opposes farm subsidies only for those with incomes of more than $250,000 and a net worth above $2 million. But he's gone further on the stump.

I don't support agricultural subsidies no matter where they are," McCain said at a recent appearance in Wisconsin. "The farm bill, $300 billion, is something America simply can't afford."McCain later described the measure, which is very popular throughout the Midwest, as "a $300 billion, bloated, pork-barrel-laden bill" because of subsidies for industries like ethanol.

It's not a stand that pleases Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.
"I would not advise him to take that position," Grassley said. "For sure, he can't lose Missouri and that's in the upper Midwest. Could he lose Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and still be elected president? Yes, but I wouldn't advise him to have that strategy."

Grassley, a conservative Republican, and his Senate colleague from Iowa, liberal Democrat Tom Harkin, have achieved enduring success in this state largely by mastering the politics of farm issues. Harkin chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, which wrote the new farm legislation.
"I don't see any scenario in which McCain can get to the White House without carrying some upper Midwestern states," said Harkin, an Obama backer. "I've never really understood in all my years why Sen. McCain has gone out of his way to speak against and vote against policies that are important to the upper Midwest."

There's a history of close elections in the region. President Bush carried Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota in 2004, earning 35 electoral votes. But his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, prevailed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, giving him 41 electoral votes.Veteran GOP strategist Gentry Collins said McCain can defend his record on farm issues, including opposing "corporate welfare" for big operations, but he said there's more at work.

"The upper Midwest is crucial in this election, and Midwestern voters value authenticity. They value experience," Collins said. "I don't think agricultural issues are the only issues Midwestern voters care about. There are some bigger-picture issues, broader issues where he's strong."
But on another important issue to Midwesterners, McCain opposed a tax break for developing wind power. Obama supported the tax break.
"We're employing close to 2,000 people right now in Iowa in the wind energy industry," Harkin said.

McCain has been most outspoken on ethanol subsidies, and that has Republicans worried in Iowa, the nation's biggest producer of the fuel. Other top ethanol producers include Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri."It does challenge him in states like Iowa, the No. 1 ethanol state," said Bill Northey, Iowa's Republican agriculture secretary. "It does make it tougher to make the case."

Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford said McCain's problem on farm issues reflects a deeper issue he faces as he's courted conservative GOP activists, many of whom are deeply suspicious of him."He's essentially reverting to standard Republican supply-side economics," said Goldford. "That's where he's got a problem. He's got to find his own voice and so far he hasn't had a voice."

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat who has campaigned for Obama, said he's puzzled by McCain's position. He points to other Republicans who have a different view. "President Bush and I just had a good conversation about how critically important ethanol is, and how Iowa is positioned so well to lead the nation," said Culver. "I have no idea why John McCain doesn't support it. It hurts him in Indiana, and Missouri and Ohio, and it's not the message right now that any of us want to hear."

Obama has a modest lead in national polls, but electoral votes will decide the election. Obama is poised to do well on both coasts, while McCain is favored in the South and some parts of the West. That leaves the upper Midwest as a swing battleground. "The Midwest is crucial in this campaign," said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat and an early backer of Obama. "Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and perhaps Indiana are very important states. McCain is behind, and he's in danger of falling further behind."

John McCain and his Phoney Patriot party....

I have noted how it has become the unwritten rule that anytime that John McCain shows up anywhere that everybody is required to "thank him for his service" or "call him a hero”. This is a person whose political party put together ads that featured photos of Max Clelland morphed into photos of Osama Bin Laden. Max ALSO served in Vietnam, he left behind three limbs!

Ann Coulter even had the nerve to suggest that Clelland was "stupid enough to drop the grenade that blew him apart"! During the Iran-Contra hearings Senator Daniel Inoye commented when Oliver North claimed that he was "following orders" when he went against Congress to support the illegal clandestine sale of weapons to Iran, that "they didn't buy that excuse in Nuremburg from the Nazis and he didn't either". They called HIM a traitor? Senator Inoye, a Japanese-American from Hawaii who lost the use of one arm in service for this country?

McCain claims that Obama has never done anything other than make a couple of speeches and that HE is an elitist? COME ON! Perhaps somebody should clue him in that this didn't work for Clinton either! If ANYBODY is an Elitist it is HIM! McCain lived in officer's housing for his childhood as the son of a Commander. I have lived near a base. Commanders live high off the hog. He graduated near the bottom of his class. Obama was the so of a teenage mother whose father left him as a two year old. He EARNED his way into Columbia and Harvard with his good grades. He was the first Black Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a man who grew up with a of minuses that McCain never knew as a spoiled pampered officer's kid who married into wealth. HE is the elitist. He votes against the service men and women and he votes against the average American too. Let's call it the way it is. He belongs to the GOP. It's a Grand Old Party and YOU ain't invited.

No wonder Gramm hears whinning....he hangs out with McCain!

New McCain Web ad mocks Obama as false Messiah
Judging by the video John McCain's campaign released to the Web on Friday, the thinking inside McCain headquarters is that, despite all the criticism it took for it, its "Celeb" ad -- the one that compared Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- just didn't go far enough.
So the campaign stopped holding back for this latest video, which is titled "The One," a reference to a Messianic figure in "The Matrix" and its sequels and a nickname for Obama inside the McCain camp. The thrust of the ad is that Obama sees himself as a Messianic figure. "He has anointed himself ready to carry the burden of 'The One,'" the video's narrator says at one point.

In doing this, it should be noted, the McCain camp took at least two quotes from Obama out of context. It uses one controversial remark made by Obama that popped up earlier this week, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." A Democratic source later told multiple news outlets that, in context, Obama wasn't speaking about himself but about America generally -- the source quoted Obama as having also said, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol.'" It's fairly obvious that Obama was joking in another similar quote used in the video.

Really, though, this truly has to be seen to be believed. After I saw it for the first time, I spent more than a couple of minutes checking around the Web to make absolutely sure it wasn't a hoax, figuring it couldn't really have been released by a presidential campaign. But it's real.

John McCain's Oil Hoax

Joe Conason in the New York Observer

Forced to cancel a planned visit to an oil platform off the Mississippi coast last week because of inclement weather—and the untimely leaking of hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil by a shipwreck in the vicinity—John McCain finally got his photo op at a Bakersfield derrick on July 28. Speaking on site, the Arizona senator delivered extraordinarily good news to the beleaguered gasoline-consuming public as he explained why we must drill offshore.

Based on briefings that Senator McCain says he received from “the oil producers,” he said, “There are some instances [that] within a matter of months they could be getting additional oil. In some cases, it would be a matter of a year. In some cases it could take longer than that, depending on the location and whether you use existing rigs or you have to install new rigs, but there’s abundant resources in the view of the people who are in the business that could be exploited within a period of months.”
The prospect of significant new petroleum resources that could be available so soon would be excellent news—aside from the obvious impact of burning still more oil—if only what the senator said was true.

But what he said actually made no sense whatsoever, as a statement about the future development of domestic oil, the alleged need to increase drilling off our coasts or the resources that such drilling might produce. So let’s unpack that McCain statement (which was overshadowed by the news that his dermatologist had just removed a small lesion from the 71-year-old melanoma survivor’s right cheek).

It may be true that “existing rigs” could produce additional barrels of domestic oil immediately, whether on land or in the ocean, as Senator McCain suggests. If so, he might want to ask his friends in the oil business why those rigs aren’t producing more oil now, at prices above $140 a barrel. An existing rig by definition is a rig that is operating legally on property already leased for exploration—and can produce oil unencumbered by any environmental constraints on drilling. In case the senator doesn’t understand, an existing rig is where someone has already drilled a well.

Where companies would have to install new rigs, the question is whether a lease already exists or whether the government would have to grant a new lease. New drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would mean new leases that are now illegal. But as the Associated Press reported last month, nearly 75 percent of the existing leases on federal lands held by petroleum companies are currently producing no oil. Those companies currently hold nearly 30 million acres dormant, according to the AP. Nobody in the federal government even knows whether any exploration has taken place over the past decade.

Perhaps Senator McCain should ask his friends in the industry why they aren’t exploring or producing on the leases they already control. A truthful answer would be that those leases count as financial assets whether productive or not—and adding to them enhances an oil firm’s bottom line.

The senator should also ask an oil company executive to step forward and explain how any new offshore oil lease can produce petroleum within the next few months or even a year. If that is possible, then the Department of Energy analysis of future domestic oil production is scandalously wrong.

The department’s Energy Information Agency released a study last year predicting that granting access to new offshore leases would not begin to produce any actual oil until around 2020, and would have no “significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030,” if ever.As the Republican presidential nominee—and a putative environmentalist—he suddenly seems eager to exploit voter discontent over high gasoline prices to promote offshore drilling. He may even think he can ride the energy crisis into the White House.

Voters may or may not believe the Senator’s silly claims about his “briefings” from oilmen, which mainly seem to have involved handing over a fat check. Indeed, so far the only beneficiary of his offshore drilling offensive is the McCain presidential war chest. The Washington Post recently reported that the oil industry “gushed money after [his] reversal on oil drilling” last month. They never gave him that kind of money when he talked straight.

John McCain dictates his co-opted foreign "policies"

Senator John McCain with the Dalai Lama on Friday at a private residence in Aspen, Colo. The Dalai Lama was in Aspen for a symposium on Tibetan culture

Editor's Comment- I guess he tried to channel his inner-Ghandi by meeing with the Dalai Lama because, unlike most western people, he knew that the honored man of peace wouldn't slap the living daylights out of him. This guy is scary. Trying to wage war while taking photo ops with a well known pacifist. Does he really think he's fooling anybody?

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: July 26, 2008
WASHINGTON — President Bush and Senator John McCain have long been in agreement on major elements of American foreign policy, particularly in their approach to the “axis of evil” countries of Iran and North Korea, and their commitment to staying the course in Iraq.

But now the administration’s agreement to consider a “time horizon” for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party’s foreign party establishment say.

On Friday Mr. McCain went so far as to say that the idea of a 16-month withdrawal, which Mr. Obama supports, was “a pretty good timetable,” although he included the caveat that it had to be based on conditions on the ground.

Republicans also say the administration’s decision to authorize high-level talks with Iran and North Korea has undercut Mr. McCain’s skepticism about engagement with those countries, leaving the perception that he is more conservative than Mr. Bush on the issue.

Essentially, as the administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Whether the perception of Mr. McCain as being at odds with the administration is politically advantageous for him is a matter of debate among his supporters, but many of his more conservative advisers do not think it is a bad thing.

“There’s no doubt, particularly as Bush has adopted policies in the direction of Obama, that that gives Obama bragging rights,” said John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who has sharply criticized the administration’s talks with Iran and North Korea. “But if you believe as I do that this administration is in the midst of an intellectual collapse, it doesn’t hurt McCain. Occasionally in politics it helps to be right.”

But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.

The divisions within the Republican foreign policy establishment continue at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to establish his own international credentials. Republicans worry that he is seizing the chance, helped with the boost from Mr. Bush, to command the American foreign policy stage.

“Bush and Obama seem to be setting the foreign policy agenda, and McCain seems to be reacting,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

The McCain campaign disputes the idea that Mr. McCain has been left out on his own by the president.

“Does he feel he had the rug pulled out from under him by Bush?” said Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy aide. “Absolutely not. John McCain has always said that he wanted the troops to come home. But he is opposed to an artificial date-driven timetable that ignores conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders.”

In fact, Mr. Bush’s decision to accept a “general time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq is still a long way from Mr. Obama’s proposal for a phased pullout, as the administration has not set any timeline.

Mr. McCain has on several recent occasions envisioned a date by when most American troops in Iraq would leave, although he has refused to call it a timetable. In a speech in Ohio in May, he declared that most American troops would be home by 2013. On Monday, in remarks at the side of the first President George Bush in Kennebunkport, Me., Mr. McCain embraced, if only in passing, the possibility of withdrawing most American troops by the end of 2010.

On Friday on CNN, under questioning by Wolf Blitzer, he called Mr. Obama’s 16-month proposal “a pretty good timetable.” But the McCain campaign declined to elaborate Friday night on whether this represented a change in his views.

Mr. McCain’s advisers also say that he is not opposed to talks with Iran and North Korea, and that he supported the administration’s decision to send the under secretary of state, William J. Burns, to Geneva last week for talks with Iran and European officials about Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. McCain is against any president-to-president negotiations without preconditions, which Mr. Obama supports. (Mr. Obama’s advisers now say such talks would occur only if Mr. Obama deemed them potentially fruitful.)

Mr. McCain’s campaign continues to be a microcosm of the ongoing Republican foreign policy battles between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives like Mr. Bolton, and it is still not clear where the balance of power lies within Mr. McCain’s inner circle. So far, however, the divide between the two within the campaign does not appear as deep as it did within the Bush White House, and advisers say Mr. McCain has been able to chose when there is a policy difference.

Mr. McCain’s advisers were divided, for example, over a speech he gave on nuclear security policy in Denver in May. Two Republican pragmatists who advise Mr. McCain, the former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, supported a call in the speech for a nuclear-free world, an idea they endorse as part of a “Gang of Four” of national security statesmen. But other McCain advisers, including John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary, and Fred C. Ikle, a defense official in the Reagan administration, were opposed to the idea because, in their view, nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against an attack on the United States and its allies. In the end, Mr. Lehman said, Mr. McCain made the call in favor of a nuclear-free world.

“He wanted to do it,” Mr. Lehman said. “That position is McCain’s position. It’s not a cabal of Kissingerites or a cabal of neo-cons.”

But some of Mr. McCain’s pragmatist advisers remain uneasy that conservatives close to Mr. McCain — among them Mr. Scheunemann and Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — will help him mold a more bellicose message than they would like on Iran and its threat to Israel, particularly at a time when there is widespread speculation in the Israeli news media that Israeli may bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Others who were once uneasy about the influence of conservatives on Mr. McCain say that their worries have not been realized, even as Mr. McCain has taken conservative positions.

“What I’ve seen in the campaign so far to me demonstrates that McCain is his own man, and he’s not being managed,” said Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a secretary of state under the first President Bush.

CBS Messes Up....We have no proof that they covered this up but BOY did they step in it!

I am a longtime active member of Moveon.org but I don't really think that proof exists that CBS nefariously attempted to coverup the fact that they gave the wrong
answer to a stupid McCain answer. Human error is always as possiblity. If,on the
other hand they DID try to cobverup, this is proof that it would have been an exercise in futility that makes them either look incompetent or just plain guilty
of lying to the people. I'll let you be the judge of that.The video shown on
Countdown was posted previously....See what YOU think and speak your mind!

CBS used the wrong McCain footage to an important question regarding his recent faux pas.

John McCain's Youtube Problem Just Became a Nightmare!

How Much Does John McCain Really Know About Foreign Policy?

By Fred Kaplan
July 23, 2008,
Slate Magazine

After Barack Obama's opening day in Iraq this week, the New York Times headline read, "For Obama, a First Step Is Not a Misstep." The story, by Richard Oppel Jr. and Jeff Zeleny,noted, "Mr. Obama seemed to have navigated one of the riskiest parts of a weeklong international trip without a noticeable hitch."

That was the big nail-biter: Would Obama, the first-term senator and foreign-policy newbie, utter an irrevocably damaging gaffe? The nightmare scenarios were endless. Maybe he would refer to "the Iraq-Pakistan border," or call the Czech Republic
"Czechoslovakia" (three times), or confuse Sunni with Shiite, or say that the U.S. troop surge preceded (and therefore caused) the Sunni Awakening in Anbar province.

But, of course, it was Obama's opponent, John McCain—the war hero and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee—who uttered these eyebrow-raisers.
"Czechoslovakia" was clearly a gaffe, and understandable for anyone who was sentient during the Cold War years. What about the others, though? Were they gaffes—slips of the tongue, blips of momentary fatigue? Or did they reflect lazy thinking, conceptual confusion, a mind frame clouded by clichéd abstractions?

If Obama had blurted even one of those inanities (especially the one about the Iraq-Pakistan border), the media and the McCain campaign would have been all over him like red ants on a wounded puppy.McCain caught almost no hell for his statements—they were barely noted in the mainstream press—most likely because they didn't fit the campaign's "narrative." McCain is "experienced" in national-security matters; therefore, if he says something that's dumb or factually wrong, it's a gaffe or he's tired. Obama is "inexperienced," so if he were to go off the rails, it would be a sign of his clear unsuitability for the job of commander in chief.

It may be time to reassess this narrative's premise—or to abandon it altogether and simply examine the evidence before us. Quite apart from the gaffes, in formal prepared speeches, McCain has proposed certain actions and policies that raise serious questions about his suitability for the highest office. As president, he has said, he would boot Russia out of the G-8 on the grounds that its leaders don't share the West's values. He would form an international "League of Democracy" as a united front against the forces of autocracy and terror. And though it's not exactly a stated policy, he continues to employ as his foreign-policy adviser an outspoken, second-tier neoconservative named Randy Scheunemann, who coined the term "rogue-state rollback" and still prescribes it as sound policy.

Evicting Russia from the group of eight leading industrial nations may have some visceral appeal, but it has at least two drawbacks. First, all the G-8's other members are opposed to the notion. Second, the main issues that concern the G-8—for instance, climate change, energy policy, nuclear nonproliferation, and counterterrorism—cannot be fully addressed without Russia's participation.

The idea of a League of Democracy has a nice ring, especially given the United Nations' frequent obstructionism in the face of human misery and common danger. The obstructionism stems in part from vetoes by Russia or China, which, of course, would not be members of this league. But there are a few problems here as well. First, democratic nations often differ on high-profile issues (e.g., the invasion of Iraq, the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, the Kyoto Treaty, etc.). Second, very few of the world's pressing problems break down along the lines of democracies vs. nondemocracies, either by topic or constituency. Third, creating such an overtly ideological bloc as a central tool of foreign policy would only alienate the excluded nations—and possibly incite them to form an opposing bloc. The challenge is to find common solutions to global problems, not to encumber them in a new Cold War.

As for rolling back rogue states, one would hope that McCain has learned some lessons from George W. Bush's failures as even Bush himself has done, albeit belatedly—for instance, in deciding to negotiate with the North Koreans (though not until after they tested an atomic bomb). Someone should ask McCain: Would he cut off those talks? Does he value Scheunemann's advice? If so, which rogues does he hope to topple next, and with whose army does he plan to do it? (Ours is overbooked at the moment.)

In other words, how much does John McCain really know about foreign policy after all? It's a question to be asked and answered, not brushed away as impertinent.

If McCain thinks he can drill his way out of high prices he needs to listen to a REAL Oil Expert

John McCain's Connection to Big Oil & The Enron Loophole

Let the Vulture soar- Way to go Ashcroft....another John run amuck.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding has served a "valuable" purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee Thursday.

Testifying on the Bush administration's interrogation rules before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the technique while answering a question from Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina.

"Waterboarding, as we all know, is a controversial issue. Do you think it served a beneficial purpose?" the congressman asked.

"The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable," Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the "value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- I don't know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment -- the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources."

Waterboarding is a technique designed to simulate drowning. The agency has acknowledged using it on terror suspects. Some critics regard it as torture; others say it is a harsh interrogation technique, and proponents say it is a useful tool in the war on terror.

Ashcroft, who stated his opposition to torture, said the Justice Department has determined that waterboarding -- as defined and described by the CIA -- doesn't constitute torture.

"I believe a report of waterboarding would be serious, but I do not believe it would define torture," Ashcroft said, responding to questions from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

He added, "The Department of Justice has on a consistent basis over the last half dozen years or so, over and over again in its evaluations, come to the conclusion that under the law in existence during my time as attorney general, waterboarding did not constitute torture."

Waters asked Ashcroft if such techniques would be regarded as "totally unacceptable and even criminal" if they were used on American soldiers.

"Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces," Ashcroft said.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, asked Ashcroft how many times waterboarding had been performed. Ashcroft said that it's his "understanding it has been done three times" as part of an "interrogation process." He said he believes the subjects of the interrogations "would be labeled as high-valued detainees."

The House of Representatives earlier this year failed to muster the two-thirds majority it needed to override President Bush's veto of a bill that would have banned certain CIA interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

The White House applauded the vote, saying an override "would have diminished the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation."

The bill was an effort to curtail the CIA's ability to use harsh interrogation techniques that the military and other law enforcement agencies ban. It would have restricted U.S. interrogators to techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual.

The White House said the restriction "would have eliminated the legal alternative procedures in place in the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists."

Hey John.....How can a former POW who was tortured tolerate the fact that Bush is letting it happen? Why did you say "Yes" to Waterboarding?

Hey Johnny Boy, "Watch the Google"......Watch this!

A Native Texan recalls Phil Gramm- Evil Manipulator and Exploiter of Americans

Editor's Comment- As a native Texan who stood on a figurative chair looking down on this rattler as it slithered in from Georgia, I was never surprised when he turned into a multi-headed hydra that bit the very hands that fed him. I wrote him when he was our Senator and told him about need my Republican Mom had who was a long time supporter of his.

She was at the time an invalid. He never replied. He took her money, her time and when it came time to return the favor he was (as he was when he was of age for Vietnam) AWOL. He has taken from this country and he has skipped out on making his payments.

He accepted Democratic money when he ran for Congress and then he turned around and shared information he had from insider observations to help Ronald Regan.This is how he become a popular Republican and he later took the place of John Tower as our Senator. (Note-I met Tower as a small child. Unlike Gramm, Tower was actually a nice man who later had a drinking and womanizing problem. I cried with loss when he died in a plane crash with the grown up daughter he told me he would have loved to have introduced me to.-editor)

Gramm even had a huge pile of hot checks when the US Congress had an in house banking scandal a few years back. Interesting banking behavior for a man who taught Economics at my father's beloved A&M (WHOOP!) and who has been the "backbone" of McCain's Economic plans. Be afraid Will Robinson.....be very afraid if this is his idea of a "figurative" economic period of turmoil. He is a virtual idiot and a real jerk too.

Don't listen to me......consider his own words that have come back to bite him more than once.....
"Has anyone ever noticed that we live in the only country in the world where all the poor people are fat?" — During his first Senate Campaign against Democrat Lloyd Doggett.

"We're going to keep on building the party (the Texas Republican Party) until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." As quoted in Mother Jones, August 1995


"If you are willing to tackle the tough issues, you don’t need to worry about stepping on anyone’s toes; they will stand aside and shove you to the front.” — As quoted by former Gramm staffer Wayne A. Abernathy September 12, 2002, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness."

PSSST......John McCain, pay heed here. Gramm is like the old joke....He's like prunes. With friends like him who needs enemas.


On July 9, 2008, Gramm participated in an interview with The Washington Times, explaining John McCain's plans in reforming the U.S. economy. During the interview, he downplayed the idea that the nation was in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline." (PSST Phil.....the saying is a Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.Depression is when you lose YOUR job)

The following day, McCain strongly denounced Gramm's comments and subsequently stated that Gramm was not in consideration for any high level positions, joking "I think Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus, although I'm not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that."

Gramm later attempted to clarify his comment, explaining that he had used the word "whiners" to describe the nation's politicians rather than the public, stating "the whiners are the leaders." But in another interview, Gramm stated, "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true." (BULLSHIT-Editor's Comment)

Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned but it is only lukewarm compared to a Texan who has a memory better than any elephant and the ability to wait to strike when the iron is hot.

John McCain VS ANOTHER VIetnam Vet (wearing FUNNY hat?) Bad joke. Bad townhall tactic! Bring back the Librarian!

embed>

Show me the MONEY John.

John McCain has a secret. According to Open Secrets a watch dog money web page, it's a public information matter. He has little in the way of PAC funds but he has an amazing last minute 11% of his money that is not accounted for.

It's not mentioned as "self-financing" ala wife Cindy's Budweiser Franchise money. It's just not itemized. HUH? The dude who says he is "Senator Maverick......Senator Straight Talk......Senator Charles Keeting FIVE? Mr. McCain-Feingold with UNDISCLOSED MONEY? Who could this UNDISCLOSED source be?

Better yet.....why does he have a $110,000 plus contribution from UBS on his disclosed list? Are you saying that former Senator Phil Gramm who just HAPPENS to be co-chair of the 08 McCain Campaign, passed the hat? Now THAT'S a Kodak moment.

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767

Holy undisclosed lobbist influence! Riddle me this.... Why are so many banks listed? Can you say privitization of Social Security Insurance funds now safely held in US Secured Bonds? Sure, I knew you could boys and girls! Texas just HAPPENS to use one of these banks that has privatized unemployment payments. No more checks. You now get a loaded credit card. Nice work if you can get it.

HUMMMMM! Holy Iran-Contra, Batman! Time to head for the Batcave. It's Bush's third term all over again!

Read the numbers below. The numbers tell the tale and it is not one that flatters Mr. "Straight Talk" McCain. From one Irish about another Irish.....something is rotten in the State of Denmark. The numbers don't add up even for a George W Bush (the sequel) reigeme.

Make note......Cindy McCain says that her money is private family money and not subject to public disclosure. He suddenly took "Public Money" at the end. He only obeyed McCain-Feingold because he took out a loan to finance his campaign when he the "Straight Talk Express" was running on financial gas fumes! I know he says that he doesn't know anything about the economy but does this PROVE that he has never pumped his own gas?

I would wager after today, that Russ Feingold regrets putting his name on the McCain-Feingold Bi-Partisian Campaign Reform legislation. He watched Phone Companies get a get out of jail free card today. Maybe Russ Feingold signed in the spirit of Bipartisan Campaign reform. Now he may regret this decision.

Read 'em and weep Senator Straight Talker..... Here is your web page reference.....In the age of the Gore inspired "internets, "We the People" have our eyes upon you........all the live long day! Ask Clayton Williams......memories run long in the Lone Star State that you pal, Bush claims to be a part of. We KNEW Ann Richards........He's NO Ann Richards!

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00006424&cycle=2008


Source of Funds:

Individual contributions $104,783,672 88%
PAC contributions $1,143,214 1%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds: $0 0%
Other $13,667,709 11%

Here are the money facts....

Full Disclosure $87,131,669 (87.8%)
Incomplete $0
No Disclosure $12,161,799 (12.2%)

Maggie

John McCain setting up cheap drugs for Wal-Mart?

Fri Jul 4, 1:44 PM ET US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain speaks during a press conference at the Federal Police building in Mexico City on July 3, 2008. White House hopefuls Barack Obama and McCain marked the US Independence Day holiday Friday with parades, picnics and odes to patriotism.

NOT SO FAST SMART GUY!! What the heck is McCain doing in Mexico City with his wife
the day before he and his wife went back to the US to eat at a 4th of July Picnic?
Try understanding this......he was in Columbia the day before when the "Hostages" were released?

How the heck can he be there AHEAD of the release of hostages if he was so busy running for the US President? Interesting. Surely it doesn't have anything.....surely.....you don't think that he is setting the whole thing up to be there in case he could have had negotiations for NAFTA of his own kind! NAW....that's too conspiratorial. There HAS to be another answer.

I get it. They released them and he had time to go to Mexico for a pinata for his wife's NASCAR meeting on the FOURTH. THAT is CAPITALISM! That WORKS!

Barack Obama speaks of McCain on the G.I. Bill (Senate Floor)

McCain tries to get out of answering the GI Bill Question.....

John McCain Pander Bear?

This week in the very same week when George W Bush signed the Bi-Partisan GI Bill, he
stated that John McCain was a part of this coming into effect. GIVE ME A BREAK. John McCain voted against it. Check out this April note and you will find that even as he "supported the troops" he was once against them receiving benefits that they have more than earned!

McCain, Military Oppose Expanding GI Bill
Presidential Hopeful Believes Legislation Would Hurt Military
By Z. Byron Wolf
April 14, 2008

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.

Both Democratic presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., — have signed on as co-sponsors, and the bill has gained bipartisan support from 54 senators on Capitol Hill in addition to Webb. A vote on the proposal is expected before the summer.

But the bill, which would dramatically increase educational compensation for American troops, has run into some unexpected resistance, both at the Pentagon and now from McCain, who has remained silent on the issue, saying he had not studied the bill close enough.

John McCain Doesn't Know the Price of Gas/Can't Remember the Last Time He Bought Any

Chris Kelly (Huffington Post)
John McCain kind of stepped in it the other day, here in California, but luckily no one noticed. He was being driven from John Wayne airport to a fundraiser, and he took a quick call from Martin Wisckol of the Orange County Register. Wisckol asked him a series of softball questions so tedious McCain's driver had to crack the window so the breeze would keep him from passing out, but then this

WISCKOL: I'd like to ask you a couple questions suggested by voters here. They're not reporter-type questions.

McCAIN: Sure. It'd be a pleasure.

WISCKOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost? 


McCAIN: Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters. I've had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.


... I'm going through a tunnel... ... bzzzzzzzztttttt bzzzzzztttttt...I'm gonna lose you... bzzzztttttt... bye!

No, I added that last part.

Okay. A few things here.

1) John McCain doesn't know what gas costs, because the Secret Service protects him from finding out, possibly because they're afraid the knowledge will kill him. Not a healthy man.

2) John McCain isn't an elitist or a big government bureaucrat. He's a maverick who has certainly pumped his own gas at some point in his life, perhaps during the single 18-month period when he wasn't in the navy or in congress, but was living off his wife.

3) It doesn't matter. How do we know it doesn't matter? Because John McCain says it doesn't matter.

4) John McCain may not know what gas costs or when he last pumped any, or performed any other act not connected to politics or outpatient care, but he's had hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. Which somehow answers questions about gas prices, but it's not clear exactly how.

5) John McCain communicates with people and they communicate with him very effectively.

6) John McCain is an excellent driver. Dad lets him drive slow down the driveway every Saturday.

7) Fifteen minutes to Wapner.


--


Asking a politician about groceries is a dusty old trick. Mitt Romney doesn't know what Saran Wrap costs, and why should he? Unless it's important to the image he's trying to build, as a regular guy, or at least someone who gives a shit.

But some gotcha questions do matter.

For instance, back in 1999, when Andy Hiller had this exchange with then-Governor George W. Bush:

HILLER: Can you name the president of Chechnya?"

BUSH: No, can you?

HILLER: Can you name the president of Taiwan?

BUSH: Yeah, Lee.

HILLER: Can you name the general who's in charge of Pakistan?

BUSH: Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?

HILLER: No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots.

BUSH: The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected -- not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the subcontinent.

HILLER: Can you name him?

BUSH: General. I can name the general. General.

HILLER: And the prime minister of India?

BUSH: The new prime minister of India is -- no. Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?

HILLER: No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for president.

BUSH: What I'm suggesting to you is, if you can't name the foreign minister of Mexico, therefore, you know, you're not capable about what you do. But the truth of the matter is you are, whether you can or not.


You'd think that the candidacy was over at "I can name the general. General," but it turns out it wasn't. These questions might not have mattered. (Pakistan? Come on! As if the president really needs to know about Pakistan!) What was important was the way the candidate answered.

Which was like a belligerent dick.


--


As opposed to John McCain on the question of pumping his own gas. Who comes off as a floundering panderer who's lost a step.


--


I'm not even sure Martin Wisckol was trying to play gotcha with John McCain. I think he was fishing for a colorful anecdote. If you read the rest of the interview, you'll see he certainly didn't ask any other questions that couldn't be answered by a press release.

John McCain has spent the last three months -- since he floated his gas tax holiday -- pretending to care about the cost of driving. He should have had a slightly better answer than "I've had hundreds of town halls."

He knows it, too. Which is why he panics after a few more questions, when Wisckol is trying to wind things up.

WISCKOL: Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me.

McCAIN: Thank you. It's a pleasure.... Hang on just one second. I think the last time that I ... I've been on the campaign trail for so long I don't remember when I last filled up my own gas tank, but I certainly did for many, many, many years and I understand the difficulties and challenges that it poses for the people of California and my home state of Arizona. I thank you, my friend.


And the name of the general is General.

Take the Challenge........Bush compared to McCain.

McCain lies like a rug.......

Why does a "Veteran HERO" refuse to support the GI Bill created by Vets for Vets?

John McCain's "Spiritual Guide"

McCain's justice-Conservative activism gone wild

By Geoffrey R. Stone (Chicago Tribune)
May 7, 2008

Sen. John McCain's speech on Tuesday on the role of judges in our constitutional system might very well qualify as one of the most ignorant statements ever made by a presidential candidate on this important subject.

McCain complained that sitting judges and justices systematically "abuse" the federal judicial power by issuing "rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically." McCain, seeking the Republican nomination for president, is apparently blissfully unaware that the vast majority of current federal judges were appointed by Republican presidents and that seven of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices and 12 of the last 14 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

McCain also seems stunningly unaware that the justices he simplistically lauds as "judicial passivists" are nothing of the sort. William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and more recently John Roberts and Samuel Alito, have consistently voted to invalidate laws at a record clip, most notably holding unconstitutional a broad range of laws regulating commercial advertising, limiting corporate campaign expenditures and authorizing affirmative action programs to enhance educational diversity—to say nothing of Bush vs. Gore. This is not strict construction and it is not judicial restraint. It is conservative activism gone wild—in judicial robes. McCain just doesn't understand.

Even worse, McCain mocks the lifetime tenure of federal judges and assails what he scorns as liberal "judicial activism." Interestingly, McCain confidently invokes the framers of the Constitution as authority for his claim that what we need in this nation are more judges who will exercise "self-restraint." But after chiding Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic presidential contender who actually knows something about constitutional law, McCain betrays his complete lack of comprehension of the U.S. Constitution and of the goals and concerns of those who crafted it.

A fundamental challenge facing the framers of our Constitution was how to restrain intolerant, self-interested, and prejudiced majorities in order to ensure that they would not run roughshod over the rights and liberties of minorities. As James Madison observed, "the greatest danger" to liberty was to be found "in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority."

Early in the constitutional process, Madison expressed skepticism about the value of a Bill of Rights. As a practical matter, he simply did not see how a Bill of Rights could "provide any check on the passions and interests of the popular majorities." Indeed, "experience teaches the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is most needed," for "overbearing majorities" tend simply to ignore these "parchment barriers." In a governmental system in which the majority can have its way, Madison asked Thomas Jefferson, "What use . . . can a Bill of Rights serve?"

In a letter back to Madison, Jefferson (who was in Paris at the time) extolled the role courts could play in enforcing a Bill of Rights. Jefferson urged Madison to consider "the legal check" which the Constitution "puts into the hands of the judiciary," a "body, which if rendered independent . . . merits great confidence for their learning and integrity."

Shortly thereafter, when Madison presented the Bill of Rights to the first Congress, he echoed Jefferson's argument, contending that if these rights are "incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves . . . the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights."

The "solution" to the seemingly insoluble dilemma of how to enforce the guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the "overbearing majorities" that would inevitably control the legislative and executive branches was thus, in part, the third branch—the judiciary, which could serve as "an impenetrable bulwark" against majoritarian encroachments on the fundamental liberties of political, social, religious, economic and other minorities.

Unlike McCain, the framers fully understood that lifetime tenure was not a mere perk of office, but an essential condition of the American constitutional system. The hope was that life tenure would insulate judges from the need to curry favor with the prevailing political majority, and thus free them to act on principle.

As John Adams affirmed, for judges to be able to undertake this solemn responsibility, they must be firmly independent of the other branches of government and must hold "their positions by a permanent tenure in no way dependent upon the will and pleasure of the executive." Without that independence, Adams added, it would be absurd "to look for strict impartiality and a pure administration of justice, to expect that power should be confined within its legal limits, and right and justice done." A critical insight of the American constitutional system was the recognition that judges needed independence not only from the executive and the Congress, but, in Madison's words, from "the people themselves."

During the ratification debates, Alexander Hamilton passionately argued that constitutional limits could "be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice," and he maintained that "the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority." The "independence of the judges," he reasoned, is "requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which the arts of designing men . . . sometimes disseminate among the people themselves." Judges, he insisted, have a duty to resist invasions of constitutional rights even if they are "instigated by the major voice of the community."

The truest aspirations of American constitutionalism are embodied in the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases like Brown vs. Board of Education (declaring racial segregation unconstitutional), Gideon vs. Wainwright (guaranteeing a person accused of crime the right to counsel), Reynolds vs. Sims (insisting on one person/one vote), Harper vs. Virginia Board of Elections (prohibiting the poll tax), and Frontiero vs. Richardson (protecting women against unconstitutional discrimination). The framers understood that our nation needs judges and justices who protect the rights of the minorities, the oppressed and the downtrodden, not judges and justices who abuse the Constitution in order to protect the interests of commercial advertisers and corporate political contributors.

To paraphrase McCain, "the moral authority of our judiciary depends" not on false promises of "judicial restraint," but on real promises of judicial wisdom—the sort of wisdom that Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Hamilton banked on when they drafted our Constitution.

Geoffrey R. Stone is a University of Chicago law professor.

More real questions we'd love to ask McCain

If he was asked REAL questions.....

Not a Ghandi disciple......

(By Air America Radio's Sam Seder)
John McCain, known for cussing out his fellow Senators shows some real class:

A new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected

John McCain's 100 Year War......

McCain's Spiritual Advisor....John Hagee.

MCCAIN: PURIM = HALLOWEEN?

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:07 AM by Mark MurrayFiled Under: 2008, McCain When McCain made a foreign policy gaffe in Jordan on Tuesday, it was Sen. Joe Lieberman who quietly pointed out the mistake, giving McCain an opportunity to correct himself in front of the international press corps. In Israel yesterday, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports, Lieberman once again intervened when McCain made an incorrect reference about the Jewish holiday Purim -- by calling the holiday "their version of Halloween here." McCain made the incorrect statement during a press conference with Defense Minister Ehud Barak after touring the Israeli city of Sderot to view buildings damaged by Hamas rocket fire. McCain was discussing the numerous rock attacks on the city. "Nine hundred rocket attacks in less than three months, an average of one every one to two hours. Obviously this puts an enormous and hard to understand strain on the people here, especially the children. As they celebrate their version of Halloween here, they are somewhere close to a 15-second warning, which is the amount of time they have from the time the rocket is launched to get to safety. That's not a way for people to live obviously." Purim is not the equivalent of an Israeli Halloween, Appelbaum notes. The holiday -- although a joyous one -- commemorates a time when the Jewish people living in Persia were saved from mass execution. When Sen. Lieberman had a chance to speak at the press conference, he placed the blame of the mistake on himself. "I had a brief exchange with one of the mothers whose children was in there in a costume for Purim," Lieberman, who is Jewish and celebrates the holiday, said. "And it's my fault that I said to Senator McCain that this is the Israeli version of Halloween. It is in the sense because the kids dress up and it's a very happy holiday and actually it is in the sense that the sweets are very important of both holidays." "Could I just say that I understand this is the holiday of Hadassah, otherwise known as Esther," McCain later said. Those in attendance quickly made light of the mistake. McCain’s mistake wasn’t a big deal. But what is interesting, Appelbaum points out, is Lieberman's role during this trip. In two days, Lieberman has intervened twice in front of the press -- once helping McCain with a correction on Sunnis/Shiites and once putting the blame on himself regarding the description of Purim.

McCain Mis-speaks Regarding Iraq........

JERUSALEM — Senator John McCain’s trip overseas was supposed to highlight his foreign policy acumen, and his supporters hoped that it would showcase him in a series of statesmanlike meetings with world leaders throughout the Middle East and Europe while the Democratic candidates continued to squabble back home.

But all did not go according to plan on Tuesday in Amman, Jordan, when Mr. McCain, fresh from a visit to Iraq, misidentified some of the main players in the Iraq war. Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself. “I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

Mr. McCain has based his campaign in large part on his assertion that he is the candidate best prepared to deal with Iraq, and the Democrats wasted little time in jumping on his misstatement to question his knowledge and judgment.“After eight years of the Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, responded: “In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda — as is reflected in the transcript. The reality is that the American people have deep concerns about the Democratic candidates’ judgment and readiness on matters of national security, and that’s why the D.N.C. launched their attack today.”

The Democrats noted that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, had made similar comments about Iran training Al Qaeda in an interview with “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” a radio program he called from Amman. “As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, according to a transcript posted on the show’s Web site.
It was not the first time that Mr. McCain’s remarks during a

Congressional trip overseas have caused headaches for his campaign. It was nearly a year ago that his talk about the improving security situation in Iraq made headlines, after a trip he made to a marketplace there was guarded by more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees and attack helicopters, becoming fodder for Democrats and critics of the war.
Mr. McCain later said he misspoke. And in a speech he gave last April about the need to succeed in Iraq, he made light of it. “I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq,” he said. “Unlike the veterans here today, I risked nothing more threatening than a hostile press corps.”

The latest trip was a Congressional fact-finding mission, but Mr. McCain, a presidential candidate, planned to hold a fund-raiser on Thursday at a stop in London. He traveled with two senators who strongly support his presidential bid: Mr. Lieberman, an independent of Connecticut, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Their trip to Iraq on Sunday coincided with one by Vice President Dick Cheney; both trips, in which the visitors spoke about the improvements in Iraq, were somewhat overshadowed by a bombing on Monday that killed more than 40 people in Karbala.

From Iraq, Mr. McCain traveled to Jordan, and then here to Israel, where he and his colleagues paid their respects at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum, and then met with President Shimon Peres of Israel at his residence.Mr. Peres called Mr. McCain a good friend of Israel. And noting that Mr. McCain had been hopping all over the Middle East, Mr. Peres told him, “I really admire your courage and stamina.”

McCain's Role in Plane Pact Spotlights Ties to Lobbyists

By Michael D. Shear and Matthew MoskWashington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 12, 2008; Page A06

To show that he's a crusader against wasteful spending and congressional corruption, Sen. John McCain repeatedly brags about his leading role in stopping a scandal-plagued air tanker contract between the Air Force and Boeing in 2004. Four years later, a $35 billion contract has been awarded to Europe's Airbus consortium to build the latest generation of tanker planes. The decision has sparked anger from Boeing's congressional supporters and critics of outsourcing. It has also focused attention on McCain's reliance on lobbyists in his campaign for president because his finance chairman and several other top advisers lobbied for Airbus last year when it was in fierce competition with Boeing for the Air Force contract.

McCain has spoken out for years against the influence of special interests in Washington, but his campaign includes a number of prominent Washington lobbyists, including campaign manager Rick Davis, who founded a lobbying firm, and top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., chief executive of a well-known Washington firm. Neither of them lobbied for Airbus.

McCain finance chairman Thomas G. Loeffler and Susan E. Nelson, who left Loeffler's lobbying firm to be McCain's finance director, both began lobbying for Airburs's parent company in 2007, Senate records show. William L. Ball III, a former secretary of the Navy and frequent McCain surrogate on the trail, also lobbied for Airbus, as did John Green, who recently took a leave from Ogilvy Public Relations to serve as McCain's legislative liaison. "Airbus, I have to give them credit," said R. Thomas Buffenbarger, the president of the International Association of Machinists, which represents Boeing employees. "They know they need that kind of lobbying help. And they went after people who could deliver."
It is not clear what specifically the McCain campaign advisers did for Airbus. Lobbying registration documents list only "initiatives and interests regarding the KC-30 Aerial Refueling Tanker Program." Loeffler did not respond to e-mail requests for an interview.

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said the senator from Arizona and his advisers have done "nothing improper" in the tanker deal. "John McCain was never personally lobbied on this issue," she said.
Nonetheless, Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Washington state, where Boeing has long had a significant presence, have lambasted McCain for laying the groundwork for a decision that will cost their economy thousands of aerospace jobs. Lawmakers in Kansas, where Boeing has a plant, have also been critical.

On the campaign trail, McCain hails his involvement in the years-long search for a modern tanker as clear evidence of his commitment to rooting out special interests. In 2004, he led the congressional investigation that uncovered a bribery scandal in which top Boeing and Air Force officials went to prison or were forced to resign.

"I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," McCain said during a recent debate. But the easy applause line at his town hall meetings has become a much murkier issue for the presidential hopeful.
McCain has acknowledged sending two letters to Defense Department officials urging them to level the playing field for a deal that would provide a fleet of in-air refueling planes for military aircraft. In one 2006 letter, McCain urged officials to change their criteria for evaluating bidders for the tanker contract.

Nice work dude......send our MILITARY contracts to another country! Now THAT'S national security. Savings? We pay less for the inital sale but the taxes paid by the thousands who lost their jobs would pay more than the difference.....gee....you're RIGHT. You DON'T know anything about economics Maverick....