JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!

[FOTD]

No way.

McSame is the ultimate hypocrite: unlike Cheney or Bush, he has seen combat in war (alebeit imperialist conquest). Yet he has sold out the military to which he (supposedly) holds in high esteem. Typical Republican hypocrisy.

And his accomplice in turning his back on post 9-11 heroes.... Mister Jimmy (Inhofe)

John McCain Adores the War and Ignores the Warriors

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/84010/

"McCain doesn't care if we're in Iraq for a hundred years, but when it comes to the veterans who've served over there, the senator is AWOL. His votes indicate he would rather give tax cuts to the rich than care for wounded veterans. Now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee for president, a coalition of veterans groups, liberal activists, and Democratic PACs have decided to target McCain over his failure to support veterans."


"Veterans groups were unimpressed."


"Sens. McCain, Graham and Burr are shortchanging our veterans and undermining America's heroes as they reach for the American dream," said VoteVets's Soltz. "Frankly, it hurts to have two veterans, like Sens. McCain and Graham treat us like this. We would expect that they would have more honor than that."

[cannon_fodder]

So if you vote against an increase in Military expenditures and/or Veterans benefits you are not patriotic?  The argument sound familiar, and it's equally bunk when coming from the Republican side.

Not too mention, your source is a joke. Other vexing pieces on your source:

"Did John McCain Call his Wife a C**t?"

"America's University of Imperialism"

"Ignore the Corporate Media Spin, McCain is a Weak Candidate"

"John McCain Adores the War and Ignores the Warriors"

"Will Pot Ever Be Legal in This Schizoid Country?"

"McCain's Sneak Attack on Obama"

"Is There Any Way to Stop Wal-Mart & Co. from Sweatshop Profiteering?"

"McCain's Elitism and the New GI Bill"

"Corporate Vultures Lurk Behind the World Food Crisis"

"John McCain and the Simple Arithmetic of Republican Economic Failure"

"As Election Nears, Supreme Court Upholds Repressive Voter ID Law"

"The Myths and Harsh Effects of Bush's Economic Class War"
- - -

You do know the difference between "news" and "opinion" right?  Generally, when one of the subjects is referred to as a failure, a vulture, or other overtures it's not really news.  

Did you know that "Liberalism is a form of mental illness" and that it leads to the failure of industry society.

IHateObama.com says so.  So it must be news.

[FOTD]

Well then, here's more of the same from FOTD!

Friday, May 2. 2008
Fareed Zakaria NAILS John McCain on Foreign
Policy
http://rackjite.com/archives/1484-Fareed-Zakaria-NAILS-John-McCain-on-Foreign-Policy.html

Mccain Vs. Mccain
He seems to think he can magically unite the two main strands in the foreign-policy establishment. He can't.
Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Apr 26, 2008

"Amid the din of the dueling democrats, people seem to have forgotten about that other guy in the presidential race—you know, John McCain. McCain is said to be benefiting from this politically because his rivals are tearing each other apart. In fact, few people are paying much attention to what the Republican nominee is saying, or subjecting it to any serious scrutiny.

On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.
In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.

We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

I write this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. I also agree with much of what else he said in that speech in Los Angeles. But in recent years, McCain has turned into a foreign-policy schizophrenic, alternating between neoconservative posturing and realist common sense. His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic.

The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers? How would the League of Democracies fight terrorism while excluding countries like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt and Singapore? What would be the gain to the average American to lessen our influence with Saudi Arabia, the central banker of oil, in a world in which we are still crucially dependent on that energy source?

The single most important security problem that the United States faces is securing loose nuclear materials. A terrorist group can pose an existential threat to the global order only by getting hold of such material. We also have an interest in stopping proliferation, particularly by rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. To achieve both of these core objectives—which would make American safe and the world more secure—we need Russian cooperation. How fulsome is that likely to be if we gratuitously initiate hostilities with Moscow? Dissing dictators might make for a stirring speech, but ordinary Americans will have to live with the complications after the applause dies down.

To reorder the G8 without China would be particularly bizarre. The G8 was created to help coordinate problems of the emerging global economy. Every day these problems multiply—involving trade, pollution, currencies—and are in greater need of coordination. To have a body that attempts to do this but excludes the world's second largest economy is to condemn it to failure and irrelevance. International groups are not cheerleading bodies but exist to help solve pressing global crises. Excluding countries won't make the problems go away.

McCain appears to think that he can magically unite the two main strands in the Republican foreign-policy establishment. But he can't. This is not about personalities but about two philosophically divergent views of international affairs. Put together, they will produce infighting and incoherence. We have seen this movie before. We have watched an American president unable to choose between his ideologically driven vice president and his pragmatic secretary of State—and the result was the catastrophe of George W. Bush's first term. Twenty-five years earlier, we watched another president who believed that he could encompass the entire spectrum of foreign policy. He, too, gave speeches that were drafted by advisers with divergent world views: in that case, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It led to the paralyzing internal battles of the Carter years. Does John McCain want to try this experiment one more time?"



"His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic." Anyone see the original Frank Sinatra version of The Manchurrian Candidate?

[FOTD]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXm7Wd2_tzpw2bFE9Jnx433fnrhgD90G9LKG0

McCain castigates Obama on judges
By LIBBY QUAID – 3 hours ago

"WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) — Republican John McCain criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice, reaching out to the Christian right on one of their chief concerns: the proper role of judges in government.

Conservatives contend that federal judges have upset the constitutional balance of power among the courts, the Congress and the presidency by making far-reaching decisions, such as one in 2005 that let cities seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls.

"My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power," McCain said Tuesday in a speech at Wake Forest University.

McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, saything they would interpret the law strictly to curb the scope of their rulings. While McCain didn't mention abortion, the far right understands that such nominees would be likely to limit or perhaps overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Obama, on the other hand, voted against Roberts and Alito. So did Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but McCain focused on Obama.

"Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done," McCain said. "But ... he went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee."

"Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other," McCain said.

Obama's campaign responded that McCain would pick judges who represent a threat to abortion rights and to McCain's own campaign finance reform bill.

"Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

The Arizona senator said his role models interpret the law strictly, paying attention to what lawmakers intended, as opposed to "activist" judges who, by striking down statutes or court decisions, make laws rather than interpret them. "Activist" is a term conservatives use pejoratively to criticize liberal justices.

Yet in the private property case McCain mentioned, the Supreme Court decided to defer to local officials rather than impose their own will from afar. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, wrote of the high court's "longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."

McCain appeared confused about where he was for a moment Tuesday, saying, "I appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of West Virginia," then correcting himself to say Wake Forest as the audience laughed.

By speaking about judges, McCain offered an olive branch to the Christian right, which has been deeply suspicious of McCain.

He has clashed with its leaders and worked against them on issues like campaign finance reform. He also joined the "Gang of 14," a group of senators — seven Republicans and seven Democrats — who avoided a showdown over judges by agreeing to preserve the minority party's right to block President Bush's nominees with the filibuster.

Despite his rocky relations with the right, McCain's record on their top priorities — cultural issues like abortion — is very conservative.

While he did say once in 1999 that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, that amounted to a blip in an otherwise unbroken record of opposing abortion rights for women. McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for abortion and has opposed federal Medicaid funds for abortion even in cases of rape or incesT."

I hope Obama wears it like a badge of honor!

[FOTD]

McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803494.html?hpid=topnews

"Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks."

Sticky.

[FOTD]

Arianna Huffington  

What John McCain Told Me, and What it Says About How Far He's Fallen
     Posted May 5, 2008 | 04:43 PM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/what-john-mccain-told-me_b_100183.html

Most Recent News: Brad Whitford and Richard Schiff corroborate my post in Friday's New York Times piece by Elisabeth Bumiller.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/us/politics/09huffington.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210460939-fFQuVXytIm0PPj1ft/Yh6Q&oref=slogin

Second Update: McCain and Me: Hero Worship Dies Hard (But When It Does...)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/me-and-mccain-hero-worshi_b_100378.html

Update: Through a spokesperson with the colorful name Tucker Bounds, McCain has denied telling me he didn't vote for Bush in 2000. "It's not true," Bounds told the Washington Post, "and I ask you to consider the source."

My sentiments exactly -- because John McCain has a long history of issuing heartfelt denials of things that were actually true.

He denied ever talking with John Kerry about his leaving the GOP to be Kerry's '04 running mate -- then later admitted he had, insisting: "Everybody knows that I had a conversation."

He denied admitting that he didn't know much about economics, even though he'd said exactly that to the Wall Street Journal. And the Boston Globe. And the Baltimore Sun.

He denied ever having asked for a budget earmark for Arizona, even though he had. On the record.

He denied that he'd ever had a meeting with comely lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her client Lowell Paxon, even though he had. And had admitted it in a legal deposition.

And those are just the outright denials. He's also repeatedly tried to spin away statements he regretted making (see: 100-year war, Iraq was a war for oil, etc.).

So, yes, by all means, "consider the source."

Original Post: At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. "I didn't vote for George Bush" the man confessed. "I didn't either," his wife added. Their names: John and Cindy McCain (Cindy told me she had cast a write-in vote for her husband).

The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency. By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush -- both literally and metaphorically -- he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn't stomach voting for in 2000.

McCain's fall has been Shakespearean -- and really hard to watch for those, like myself, who so admired and even loved him. His nobility and his true reformer years have given way to pandering in the service of ambition.

But a large portion of the electorate hasn't noticed the Shakespearean fall. How else to explain The 28/48 Disconnect -- wherein only a die-hard 28 percent of voters still approve of Bush, but 48 percent say they'd vote for McCain, who is running on the "more of the same" platform?

The thing is, these voters clearly still think of McCain as the maverick of 2000, a straight shooter who would never seek the embrace of a man he couldn't bring himself to vote for, nor accept the regular counsel of Karl Rove, the man behind the vile, race-baiting attacks on him during the 2000 campaign.

And the main reason for The 28/48 Disconnect is the mainstream media's ongoing membership in the John McCain Protection Society. They too continue to party -- and report on McCain -- like it's 1999.

Look at the slack they cut him after his infamous stroll through a Baghdad market was revealed as an utter sham. James Frey was eviscerated for far less. Or the slack they cut him after his repeated confusion of Sunni and Shia. Or the slack they cut him when his promise to run a "respectful" campaign ran aground on his sleazy attempt to connect Barack Obama and Hamas.

Every time McCain screws up, the media jump all over themselves to make it better, as if grandpa had said something embarrassing at the dinner table and it needed to be smoothed over as quickly as possible.

The latest example came late last week when the Straight Talk Express hit an oil slick and skidded off the road. Click here for the blow by blow, but, in short, McCain implied that Iraq is essentially a war for oil, then tried to take it back, explaining that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War, then, when pressed, denied that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War.

And, by and large, the media gave him a pass. Chris Matthews called the original war for oil comment "an astounding development," but most everyone else was too busy picking over the bones of the Wright/Obama carcass to give it much play.

Interestingly, McCain's mental meltdown over the reason we invaded Iraq was prompted by a comment from a McCain supporter who said he hoped a group called "Swift Boats for McCain" would be formed to help McCain in the campaign.

The gentleman needn't worry. The group already exists. It's called "the media." And they are very well-funded, and highly motivated. The Swift Boat Media for McCain are, for instance, going to make sure that we hear a lot more about the nuances of Obama's decision to not wear a flag pin on his lapel than about McCain's ideas on a little thing like the Iraq war.

Witness the reaction to McCain's repeated declarations that he thinks we should be in Iraq for "100 years." The DNC had the gall to use McCain's own words in an ad, causing McCain to flip out: "My friends, it's a direct falsification," he said, "and I'm sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion."

So, to review: using a candidate's own words against him is off limits, but making disgraceful insinuations about Hamas and Obama isn't.

But instead of nailing McCain on the "deterioration" of his ethics -- to say nothing of his logic and reasoning -- the Swift Boat Media dutifully repeated his talking points, as in this AP lede claiming, without reservation, that the DNC ad "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq."

McCain tries to wriggle away from his "100 year" comment by saying that he wasn't talking about a hundred year war, but a very long term commitment of U.S. troops, like we have in Germany or South Korea. Maybe so, but the last time I looked no one was blowing up American soldiers in Wiesbaden.

The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg, a writer who hasn't drunk the It's Still 2000 Kool-Aid, sums up McCain's Strangelovian "vision": "McCain 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."

The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn't on the ballot in 2008. And the proof has all but jumped up and grabbed the media by the throat: the ring-kiss of "agents of intolerance" Falwell and Robertson; the decision to make permanent tax cuts he twice voted against, saying he could not "in good conscience support" them; the campaign finance reformer replaced with a candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists and fueled by loophole rides on his wife's jet; the hard-line stance against torture replaced by a vote allowing waterboarding; the guarded-by-a-battalion stroll through the "safe" neighborhoods of Baghdad; the use of Karl Rove as an advisor... and the embracing of the disastrous policies of a man he so abhorred he would not vote for him.

What will it take for the Swift Boat Media to realize that John McCain jumped the shark a long, long time ago? "

[FOTD]

It is about time someone informs the American public that Mcnut is corrupt.

May 10, 2008,  6:54 pm
Obama Says McCain's Keating Five Connection Is Not Off Limits
By Jeff Zeleny
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/obama-says-mccains-keating-five-connection-is-not-off-limits/
BEND, Ore. – Senator Barack Obama said today that a scandal from Senator John McCain's past – the Keating Five – was just as relevant to the presidential campaign as questions about who Mr. Obama has associated with over the years.
In a news conference here, Mr. Obama was asked whether his campaign intended to raise the banking scandal from the 1980s, which Mr. McCain has apologized for. Every piece of every candidate's public record, Mr. Obama said, is "germane to the presidency."
"I was just asked previously about a whole host of issues and associations that are a lot more flimsy than John McCain's relationship to Keating Five," Mr. Obama said. "What I said, I can't quarrel with the American people wanting to know more about that and me having to answer questions about it."
Mr. Obama's background, ranging from his longtime pastor to his friendship with former radicals from the 1960s, has been widely debated during the Democratic nominating fight. He said he expected the same level of scrutiny would be applied to Mr. McCain.

The topic was raised briefly during a 20-minute news conference here today. It drew sharp criticism from the McCain campaign, with a spokesman saying: "Apparently, Obama's lively calls for new politics ended today."
"If Barack Obama doesn't have the strength to stand up to his own standards, how is he going to stand up for hardworking Americans?" said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain.
While the Democratic presidential primary is May 20 in Oregon – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigned here yesterday, former President Bill Clinton arrives tomorrow – Mr. Obama's two-day campaign swing here carried the feel of the opening volley of a general election campaign in a battleground state. Mr. McCain is set to make his first trip on Monday to Oregon, a state that is being targeted by both campaigns.
As he spoke to reporters, with the Cascade Mountains in the distance, Mr. Obama sought to clarify a remark he made the other day when he suggested Mr. McCain was "losing his bearings."
Was that a veiled reference to age? No, Mr. Obama said today.
"His team somehow took this as an ageist comment," he said. "How that was interpreted in that fashion still is not clear to me."
Then, he added: "Last I checked, people lose their bearings at every age."
Perhaps. Yet it was an interesting moment, particularly considering Mr. Obama was not asked here about "losing his bearings" – or age. Mr. Obama raised both topics on his own accord.

[FOTD]

McCain's 'Compelling Logic' For Not Talking to Our Enemies
By Don Davis

"I REALLY DON'T HAVE TO; THEIR PAID LOBBYISTS ALREADY WORK FOR MY CAMPAIGN."

http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1844

[FOTD]

Okay....I'm starting to feel sorry for McCaintgonnawin .....

Obama, McCain Tussle Over Veterans Issues

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/22/obama_mccain_tussle_over_veter.html?hpid=topnews

Obama, McCain Tussle Over Veterans Issues

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) waves upon his arrival on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 22, 2008. (Associated Press)By Jonathan Weisman
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) insisted the Senate's overwhelming passage of his expansion of veterans education benefits had nothing to do with the presidential campaign.

"There is no politics," he said, after 25 Republicans broke not only with President Bush but with presumptive Republican nominee
John McCain (Ariz.) to give the measure a resounding win. "This is taking care of the people who have taken care of us."

But through the prism of the election, the politics were clear, present and vicious.

The Senate today took up and passed legislation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and twin that money with billions in domestic priorities and a new G.I. Bill that promises returning veterans sufficient tuition assistance to attend the most expensive state universities in the nation. McCain skipped the vote in favor of campaigning in California, including attending a fundraiser sponsored by San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos. But his White House rivals, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) were very much present.

"I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country," Obama said on the Senate floor. "But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this G.I. Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."

"McCain's comeback was withering, a lengthy statement questioning Obama's knowledge of veterans issues and his commitment to national security."

"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," he said in the statement.

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," he huffed.

But his opponents stand at the ready. "


nice leadership, Mcaintgonnawin

[RecycleMichael]

Quick...someone else comment so the thread isn't just FOTD talking to himself.

[Conan71]

FOTD isn't voting for McCain.  Therefore, FOTD is anti-veteran and anti-geriatric.

[FOTD]

http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and_the_uss_forresta.htm

[custosnox]

Okay, someone else with time on their hands to search for every possible article available on the net that puts down Obama, SPAM this thread with that.  Not that I'm pro-McCain, but come on, if you waste enough time doing so, you can go to every crack pot site out there and eventually find articles that will put every canidate in a poor light.  Feeling a thread with a bunch of spam like this is just annoying, and any point you think you might be making gets lost in the redundancy of it all.  If you want to make a point on an issue, post ONE time, summerize your points, and link sources (and at least find credible sources).  Otherwise you have everyone out there scrolling through it, not even bothering to read every piece of litter that you throw out there, and missing any point you are trying to make.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by custosnox

Okay, someone else with time on their hands to search for every possible article available on the net that puts down Obama, SPAM this thread with that.  Not that I'm pro-McCain, but come on, if you waste enough time doing so, you can go to every crack pot site out there and eventually find articles that will put every canidate in a poor light.  Feeling a thread with a bunch of spam like this is just annoying, and any point you think you might be making gets lost in the redundancy of it all.  If you want to make a point on an issue, post ONE time, summerize your points, and link sources (and at least find credible sources).  Otherwise you have everyone out there scrolling through it, not even bothering to read every piece of litter that you throw out there, and missing any point you are trying to make.

I agree completely, custosnox.  Here at Internet Headquarters, we have a special acronym we like to throw out in threads like these to posters like FOTD:  

GYOFB*

[FOTD]

A little swft boating McCain and all I get is two minor calling outs?

Landslide.....