4um: McCain's Annoying Little Fraud

Title: McCain's Annoying Little Fraud
Source: Slate
URL Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2199042/
Published: Sep 9, 2008
Author: Mickey Kaus
Post Date: 2008-09-09 10:12:41 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 343
Comments: 24

McCain's Annoying Little Fraudkf recasts its blog in its own maverick image!By Mickey Kaus
Updated Saturday, Sept. 6, 2008, at 3:56 PM ET

(Pierre, S.D.) McCain would like everyone to think his campaign imploded last summer because of his courageous support for the surge in Iraq:

I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn't a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.
--McCain's acceptance speech, 9/4/08

This bit of history was repeated by the McCain campaign in at least one WaPo group interview I attended--suggesting it's an accepted talking point. It's also bogus. McCain's campaign imploded last summer because of his support for "comprehensive"immigration reform, including legalization of existing illegals (semi-amnesty). At the time, the Official MSM Story line centered on budgetary problems (still not Iraq!), but McCain himself admitted the truth to New Yorker's Ryan Lizza:

Over lunch in Arlington, McCain had given the stock explanation for what caused last summer's difficulties. "The problem, which was my problem, was that our fiscal expectations weren't met by reality," he said— in other words, he couldn't raise enough money. But the next day, as I travelled with McCain around South Carolina, he told me that his campaign's brush with death had less to do with fund-raising than with his role in championing the ambitious immigration-reform bill, supported by the White House, that died in Congress this year. "It wasn't the budgetary problems. That was an inside-the-Beltway thing," he said, referring to press coverage of his campaign's setbacks. McCain gets animated whenever he discusses the immigration issue. After a town-hall meeting in Anderson, South Carolina, he recalled how the Irish were discriminated against in America. As he quoted a placard that hangs on the wall of an aide's office ("Help Wanted—No Irish Need Apply"), he jabbed his finger in the air with such emphasis that he knocked my voice recorder to the ground and erased our conversation. "It was immigration" that hurt his campaign, he said when he continued, after a series of apologies on both sides. "I understand that. I was told by one of the pollsters, 'We see real bleeding.' " [E.A.]

McCain bucked the political/media CW on the "surge." He was right, it appears, and he should get lots of credit--though no more than President Bush, who doesn't seem to be getting any at all. But McCain's surge position wasn't what (temporarily) sank his campaign--it was how he revived his presidential campaign after it had been derailed by immigration, the issue he'd now like to hide (and an issue where he embraced the political/media CW). McCain was running in the Republican primary, remember,** which makes his behavior last summer not quite as courageous as he boasts it was. Same goes for his behavior now. ...

**--Supporting the surge was no more a huge courageous risk in a GOP primary than opposing the war was a huge courageous risk for Obama in a Dem primary. ... 12:30 P.M. link

Vast....why did he vote to fund the war (twice, I believe) after taking this position?

Why did he vote to fund the war, together with the other Demos? Because they're a bunch of wimps. Is that news to you?

They COULD have stopped this waste one month after they got elected, back in 2007 but they didn't. Also, they didn't impeach Bush and they didn't reverse all his sighing statements.

As you may or you may not know, I am ANTIPARTI. I believe that it's the party organizations that prevent our representatives from representing us. They are criminal organizations and they should be treated the same way Mafia is treated. The RICO laws could be easily applied to political parties if a prosecutor had the guts to do so.

Would you rather have someone who is for the war and admits it. Or someone who claims to be against it and is really for it. I'll take the honest guy.

You are mixing 'honesty' and murder and stating that it's okay to mass murder people for as long as you like it and admit that you enjoy the bloodshed. This IS bizarre.

In other words, you'd rather have Dr. Mengele as your honor guest for dinner or... maybe as your favorite candidate for US prez, than some regular Germ who knew about the Dr.'s experiments and didn't scream in protest against them.

Yes, there are such things as just wars. What we know as America's revolutionary war was quite just. I am inclined to state that the South war, defending against the North aggression was just. The Chechen war against Russia was just. Just wars are almost always defensive. I can't think of an offensive war at this time that I could call 'just'.

Bush's wars AND Clinton's wars are all criminal actions of mass murder, given the technological gap between our military and our opponents, I can't think how they could be called anything else.

Obama a wimp for voting to fund the Bush WOT? The Ds wimps for taking impeachment off the table? Wimp is too mild a word for this overt support of butchery. When their support is directly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people you’ll have to come up with a stronger word than wimp. Start with criminally complicit.

My friend, I am not a supporter of the Demos. However, there IS a difference between the bully who beats the s__t out of little girls because he can and the passers by who fearfully look the other way, minding their own business.

Do I have sympathy for either of them? Of course not but, if I could only make one arrest, I would definitely go after the bully, not after the passers by. I suspect that you might have been in the position to decide whom to go after first during your glorious career as officer of the peace. I hope that you always went after the REALLY, REALLY bad guy first. Didn't you?

So, JOB one is to get rid of Bush and all Bushists such as McCain Palin. After that, we are going to be able to afford to despise and bash the second tier.

There is also a difference between those who look the other way and those that egg on the bully while writing up their own list of little girls who need to be curb stomped.

So, JOB one is to get rid of Bush and all Bushists such as McCain Palin. After that, we are going to be able to afford to despise and bash the second tier.

So, JOB one is to get rid of Clinton and all Clintionists such as Gore and Kerry. After that, we are going to be able to afford to despise and bash the second tier.

Ah yes, the election that will define America. No time to think! No time to question! Mr. X must beat Mr. Y or the nation is doomed! We'll show those Y party bastards! We'll fix em real good at the polls.

We've already been down the road of revenge voting. It didn't work in 2000 and it won't work now.

"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.

So, when you see the bully messing up with the little girls you go after the peaceful but fearful civilians who happened to be around but did not try to stop the creep. Yes?

I suppose it's a good thing because the bully just might fight back if you go after him.

Your flawed analogy assumes a good (less good) and bad (less bad) position. Both sides of the political coin are equally as bad because they work in tandem toward a common goal as in support of the WOT. They are undeserving of any support, either tacitly or directly.

The inferno is believed to be organized in some concentric 'ring' structure where, the closer you are to the innermost circle, the more severe the punishment gets. There must be some reason for that. Not to mention the so- called purgatory. The 'mortal' sins vs. some other sins. The third degree murder vs. the second degree murder. The crime vs. the misdemeanor. The death penalty vs. probation.

For your information, I did not support Bush over Clinton's extension (Gore) in 2000 because I could not detect a significant difference between the 2 creeps. I supported Buchanan in 2000.

I 2008, I can see a significant difference between McCain and Obama. Neither is perfect but one is an insane, murderous maniac. I do not expect Obama to bring Heaven down to Earth. My expectation is that he will not help open the gates of hell wide open. It's a pretty modest expectation.

I don't agree with you Jethro. Their policies WILL NOT be 100 percent mirrors of each other. The history that is to come will be different depending on if Obama or McCain gets it. I agree with you that they both suck. But I think it is inaccurate to say they are "equal". Equal has a real meaning.

My friend, based on the available evidence, I see how it is you the one who supports infanticide, rape, dismemberment, torture, genocide, arson while at the same time opposing recycling and responsible fluoridation.

I'm for intelligent recycling (recycling where it makes sense to do so, where there is a use for what is being recycled and there is a net energy / materials savings), and very much against any fluoridation of any kind. IMHO the term "responsible fluoridation" is an oxymoron. So what does that make me?

Depending on where you stand on rape and mass murder... you seem to be a centrist-leaning extremist.

LOL! An "extreme centrist". I like it. Sort of like a sane radical, find the path that makes the most sense to pursue regardless of ideology and pursue it with extreme vigor, no holds barred, no quarter given. I can live with that...