Former GOP Senator Backs Obama

The online publication Politco is reporting that former GOP Senator Larry Pressler voted for Barack Obama and donated $500.00 to his campaign. Pressler was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate. The reason he gave for backing Obama was the economy. Here is a quote from the article:

"I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of [former Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin and [former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker better," he said. By contrast, John McCain's "handling of the financial crisis made me feel nervous."

You can read the rest of the Politco article here.

Alan Colmes Kicks Sean Hannity's Butt on Right-Wing Hypocrisy on McCain's Affairs

So check out this clip from Sean Hannity's show where Alan Colmes renders right-wingers speechless about McCain's affair. After two right-wingers declare that Edwards was unfit to run for president because of his affair, Colmes brings up McCain's affair. All Hannity can keep yelling is that he spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp. The male winger tries to mount a defense, but really can't. The female winger decides to do the smart thing and not respond. It is a great thing to behold.

If Republicans Want to Talk About John Edwards Affair , Then Let's Bring it On

If Republicans want to talk about the John Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter, then we should tell them, "Bring it on!" It would be a great way to get information about how John McCain treated his first wife into the public domain. Let's go over the comparisons:

1. Both McCain and Edwards were married.
2. Both of their wives had serious illnesses or injuries. McCain's ex-wife was recovering from a bad car accident and was permanently disfigured when he took up with Cindy McCain. Elizabeth Edwards had been treated for breast cancer.
3. Both of them took up with much younger women.
4. Both of them had children by the wives against whom they committed adultery.

Now, of course, there are some differences:

1. Rielle Hunter was not a wealthy heirness, Cindy McCain was wealthy.
2. Edwards was wealthy when he got involved with Hunter, John McCain was not weathy when he got involved with Cindy McCain.
3. Edwards didn't leave his wife for Rielle Hunter, John McCain did leave his ex-wife for Cindy McCain.
4. Edwards never used Hunter's money to run for public office, while McCain did use Cindy McCain's money to run for public office.

Now, of course, Republicans may want to argue that John McCain did not father any children with Cindy McCain until after they were married. Well, so far at least, there is no direct evidence that John Edwards fathered any children with Rielle Hunter. No father is listed on the birth certificate; another man claims to be the father; Hunter has never said who she believes the father to be; and there is no DNA evidence, ie, no "blue dress", that would prove Edwards is the father.

Now, are we advocating that Democrats start such conversations? No, because we aren't crazy about this whole idea that the private lives of politicians should be the subject of public discussion. What we are saying, though, is that if Republicans want to start such conversations, then we should finish them by pointing out the similarities and the differences between John McCain and John Edwards. Our guess is that astute Republicans aren't going to want to have that conversation.

McCain Wants to End Tax Deduction for Employer Provided Health Care

As this AlterNet article of July 25, 2008, makes clear, John McCain's health care plan calls for ending the tax deduction that employers get for providing health insurance to their employees. This system, which is the main pillar of America's increasingly dysfunctional health care system, delivers health insurance to about 90% of American workers. McCain wants to end this system and replace it with a system whereby Americans negotiate with health insurance companies on their own.

This is a quote from the AlterNet article linked to above:

His plan is designed -- with sugar and sticks -- to push you to negotiate on your own with the friendly insurance companies. He'll give you a tax credit -- $2,500 for an individual; $5,000 for a family -- to help you pay the price. And he'll revoke the tax exemption for any health benefits your employer provides. Under his plan, those benefits will be taxed as income. McCain says this will reduce our health care expenditures. He might be right. His preferred option -- health saving accounts -- generally features low monthly payments and very high deductibles. People tend to insure themselves against catastrophe and take a chance on routine health care.

On average, this will work pretty well if you are young and healthy and lucky. But if you are sick, if you have suffered serious illnesses in the past, if you have what insurers call a "pre-existing condition," or if you are older and at higher risk, you're in trouble. For many, insurance won't be available at any price. That's why Elizabeth Edwards noted that neither she nor McCain would be eligible for such coverage since both have struggled with cancer. Many more will find adequate coverage unaffordable. Others will have to choose between paying to see a doctor or buying the weekly groceries. You'll be more "sensitive to price," but you might not think that a good thing.

The article's author, Robert Borosage, who is co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, goes on to note that while John McCain extols the virtues of private medical insurance plans, he personally has spent his entire life on a government paid health insurance system. When he was growing up, his father got health coverage for his family because he was in the Navy. Then, after high school graduation, McCain went to Annapolis where he received health care from the government. A year after he left the military, he was elected to Congress and got the best coverage offered to Americans. So, while he wants to end the health care system that most American workers use, he will continue to receive health care from the U.S. Government.

The next time that someone tells you they are voting for McCain, ask them if they have employer provided health insurance. If they say "yes", ask them how they feel about McCain doing away with such coverage. See how that makes them feel.

McCain Blows Off Iraq's Prime Minister Comments About Withdrawal Timeline

One of the interesting questions is how the Republicans are going to handle the statements of the Iraqi Prime Minister and other officials about wanting a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops. These comments, as we pointed out earlier, pose a real problem for Bush and McCain. Apparently the Iraqis want a three to five year timeline for withdrawal of American troops. Obama wants a 16 month timeline. What neither wants is what McCain apparently wants, an endless presence of American troops in Iraq.

Apparently the Republican answer is simply to ignore the desires of the Iraq government that American troops have died to help establish. John McCain, on a morning news show, blew off the Prime Minister's comments with the following phrase:
"Prime Minister Maliki is a politician." Translation, "I am not going to do what he wants, I am going to do what I want."

In a report dated July 9, 2008, Bloomberg News Service reported that the Bush Administration is rejecting the Iraqi's government demand for a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops. This is a quote from the article: The U.S. government rejected calls by Iraq to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from the country and said the planned reduction in force levels will be dictated by conditions on the ground.

After we were told that the Iraq War was about weapons of mass destruction, we were then told that the purpose of the war was to establish a democratic state in Iraq. Apparently, however, that only works if Iraq's "democratic" government agrees with Bush, Cheney and McCain. If it actually wants to act like a soverign nation, then it has to first get clearance from the United States.

A Maverick He Ain't

One of the myths that John McCain has been able to sell to the public through the mainstream media is the idea that he is some sort of maverick. Like with a lot of myths, however, this one doesn't bear close scrutiny.

Congressional Quarterly did an analysis of John McCain's votes in the Senate going back to the first year of the Bush Presidency. Over the last eight years, McCain has supported Bush 90.625% of the time with his Senate votes. The lowest percentage came in 2005, when he "only" supported Bush 77% of the time. So far in 2008, as of May 15, 2008 he has supported Bush 100% of the time.

So, given the fact that McCain has supported Bush over 90% of the time, why does the media keep referring to him as a "maverick"? Contrary to what liberals may believe, it is not their preference for Republicans. It is because most reporters and political commentators are part of a herd. Very few of them are original thinkers. Most of them just follow the lead of the rest of their group. The fact that they report it that way, however, doesn't make it so.

McCain Quotes on Iraq War

So, which one of these predictions from John McCain turned out to be true?

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

Why Obama Should Reject Public Financing

One of the debates shaping up between the McCain camp and the Obama campaign is whether the two candidates should take public financing. Obama signed a statement last year in which he stated that if the Republican candidate took public financing, so would he. McCain, who is at a tremendous fundraising disadvantage compared to Obama, has already said he would take such financing. Obama, however, who has shown a potential to raise literally hundreds of millions of dollars, is balking.

McCain intends to use Obama's reluctance to now take public financing if both of them are the nominees as a campaign issue. The media will help him. The reason why the media will help him is that the less candidates have to spend on their campaigns, the more important the media becomes. This is because if they had less money for paid media to get out their message, the more Obama and McCain would have to rely on free media. Free media, in the form of newspaper articles and electronic broadcasts, are controlled by the large corporations that dominate our nation's media. So it is not just their civic duty that leads news corporations such as the Washington Post to demand that Obama take public financing.

Obama is trying out a new argument to justify not taking public financing. He is pointing out that the Internet has created a whole new system of "public" financing because relatively small donors can help candidates raise millions of dollars online. This is a good argument, but there is a better one.

Obama should simply say that he is not going to allow the Republicans to "swift-boat" him like they did John Kerry. If they try, he is going to have the resources and the will to fight back. Then, he ought to point out how Fox News used the whole controversy over Rev. Wright's comments in a sermon given a relatively long time ago to attack his patriotism. He could also point out that given the reluctance of the American news media to denounce lies spread by other media organizations, he has to have enough money to beat back such attacks. When asked what has changed since he signed the agreement last year, he can point to Fox's coverage of the whole Rev. Wright situation.

Now, that also won't convince the news media, but we think it sounds better to the average voter and also makes the media aware of its own complicity in such attacks. One thing that he cannot do is give in to the pressure to accept public financing. Democrats are going to need every advantage they can get to beat John McCain, especially given his support among the news media.

Note to John McCain: If You Don't Want to be Called a Warmonger...

The Republicans are supposedly upset because liberal talk show host Ed Schultz referred to John McCain as a "warmonger" at a North Dakota Democratic Fundraiser. We are using the word "supposedly" because we can't believe that the party of the infamous Willie Horton ads; the party that tried to impeach an elected president over oral sex; the party that invented the term "swift-boating" by attacking John Kerry's patriotism is really that squeamish.

Assuming, however, that the delicate sensibilities of the GOP have been offended, here's our suggestion to John McCain and his GOP allies. If you don't want to be called a "warmonger" don't sing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" as if a war with Iran would be a laughing matter and don't say that you don't care if the U.S. has troops in Iraq for the next 100 years.

If, however, you want to act as if you don't care if the United States fights a third war with a Muslim country, then don't get offended when people call you a "warmonger." If the shoe fits, then don't complain about wearing it.

The "No-Change" McCain Iraq Catch-22

In Joseph Heller's novel, Catch-22, the following exchange takes place between two of the characters: There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

So here is "No-Change's" Catch-22 on Iraq. If the Iraqis are doing well, then we can't remove American troops because that would lead to the Iraqis not doing well. If, however, the Iraqis are not doing well, we can't remove our troops because they are not doing well and we have to keep our troops in Iraq until they do well. So, either way, like the character Orr in Heller's novel, the American people are screwed and, under McCain's reasoning, have to keep American troops in Iraq.

Maybe, out of respect to Heller's work, we should come up with our own numbering system. Maybe McCain's position should be called Catch-55, because American troops have now been in Iraq for over five years. Maybe we could call it Catch-100, because McCain doesn't care if our troops stay in Iraq for 100 years. In any event, if he gets elected, like Yossarian, all we will be able to do is whisle in appreciation of the simplicity of "No-Change's" Catch.

How McCain Works the Press

There is a fascinating article up on Huffington Post about how John McCain works the media. (The link to the article is found at the end of the this report.) The article is an interview with Paul Waldman who has co-authored a book with David Brock titled Free Ride: John McCain and the Media. Brock is the founder of Media Matters, an organization dedicated to countering right-wing bias in the news media.

In the interview, Waldman makes the case that John McCain gets a "free ride" from the media because he takes the time to stroke reporters and develop a personal relationship with them. This is a quote from the interview:

"But what McCain understands better than anyone in his profession is that nothing is more important than establishing a personal relationship with reporters. As he's found time and time again, when you build up those ties of friendship, they become a resource you can draw on later. So when something pops up that would be enormously problematic or even fatal for another politician, reporters give McCain the benefit of the doubt."

Waldman also explains how McCain's relationship with the media benefits him:

"What you find when you examine McCain's treatment by the press is this: The rules are different for John McCain. Other candidates get defined by their biggest weaknesses and the worst thing they ever did; McCain gets defined by his best qualities and the most noble thing he ever did. Other candidates find a press corps that mocks their spin and assumes they're phonies and liars; McCain's spin frames his coverage. (When was the last time you saw a story about McCain that didn't refer to him as a "maverick" or his utterances as "straight talk"?) Other candidates view the press as an adversary, and the coverage they get reflects that relationship; McCain views the press as a partner and friend, and that's how they treat him.

The result is that a whole series of ideas about McCain -- that he's a maverick, that he's a reformer, that he's an ideological moderate -- have become so embedded in the coverage of McCain that journalists no longer even ask whether they're true. And in many cases, these ideas are either completely false or have been wildly exaggerated."

Basically, if you are interested in establishing a relationship with someone, you do it by being nice to them, by flattering them, by making their jobs easier, and by not criticizing them, especially publicly. McCain is apparently applying those rules to the media because he wants a relationship with them. It obviously works, although, tellingly, not as well with his home-state news media.

In the article Waldman points out that reporters from his home-state of Arizona have seen the whole gambit of McCain's emotions. They have seen his temper, his rudeness to those who disagree with him, and his pettiness to his opponents. It is not as easy to stroke someone who has seen you blow up at them or others.

Still, since most of the media doesn't come from Arizona, McCain's treatment of the press gets him the results he wants. Since Obama hasn't been around that long, and since Clinton and the media seem to have some sort of love-hate relationship going, Democrats are going to have the face the fact that McCain will be getting much better media treatment than the eventual Democratic nominee.

Here is the link for the Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/free-ride-inside-the-med_n_93285.html

God Save the US From Another Four Years of Dogmatic Certainity

Besides their enthusiasm for the Iraq War, and their willingness to apparently go to war with Iran, there is something else that George W. Bush and John McCain have in common. Both men share an absolute, dogmatic certainty that they are right, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Here is a recent quote from John McCain about Iraq, as contained in a story by the Associated Press: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.I've seen the facts on the ground." Now, of course, what McCain has seen on the ground is what the American military wanted him to see. So we question whether McCain is getting an objective view of what is happening "on the ground" no matter what he says.

Besides the fact that we wonder about the objectivity of what he was shown in Iraq, there is also the issue that McCain sees what he wants to see. Remember when he came back from Iraq the last time he was there and pronounced that a marketplace where he had walked wearing a bullet-proof vest, accompanied by soldiers, and protected by helicopters flying overhead showed the progress we were making in Iraq? Apparently it never dawned on McCain that his vaunted trip didn't show anything other than the American military could keep a United States Senator on a planned photo-op.

This conviction that they are right, no matter what the evidence, is why Bush and McCain agree on Iraq. It is also why the election of McCain would be a disaster for the United States. We would find ourselves trapped for another four years in Iraq, pouring lives and money down a sandy rat-hole while Osama bin Laden watches us bleed like the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan.

Media Ignores McCain Not Releasing Tax Returns While Going After Clinton

Media Matters columnist Jamison Foser has a column up about how the media goes after Hillary Clinton for not releasing her tax returns while ignoring that McCain hasn't released his tax returns. Now, this could be just one more example of the double standard that is applied to the Clintons by the national media, or it could reflect the fact that McCain's opponents didn't go after him on this issue during the primaries like Obama went after Clinton.

One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.

Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.

The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.

Is Bush Administration Planning to Bring a Lot of Troops Home Right Before Election?

One of the interesting things going on is the fact that the Bush Administration is most likely going to stop bringing troops home this summer, but then bring more home in the fall. Here is a quote from a Newsweek article:

Fallon's cautious optimism could help lay the groundwork for a halt in troop reductions in Iraq this summer. Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, is expected to ask President Bush to wait until as late as September to decide whether to bring home more troops than already scheduled.

Gee, why do you suppose that could be? Could it be that the probable Republican nominee is a big supporter of the surge and the Bushies want to help him out by showing tangible evidence of the surge's supposed "success" right before the election?

Different Media Treatment of Hagee/McCain Compared to Obama/Farrakhan

If you go to Google.com's news section and put in the search words "McCain Hagee" you will get 483 hits as of 4:00 am on 3.4.2008. If you put in the words "Obama Farrakhan" you will get 1869 hits as of the same time. Now, of course, the McCain-Hagee story has not been around as long, but the fact that the story is not getting the play that the other story is getting is interesting.

There are a lot of reasons, but one reason may be that the media is scared to point out the extremism of some "Christian" ministers because of backlash from the right-wing noise machine. After all, such ministers support the neo-con's idea of a war with Iran; they have often come out in favor of extending Bush's tax cuts; and they are help stoke up the base on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Consequently, attacks on nut-jobs like Hagee for his anti-Catholic remarks and bigotry carry more risk of backlash from readers and viewers as the noise machine revs up in support of such characters.

Attacking Farrakhan, however, doesn't carry the same risk. There is no one on the left that is going to defend Louis Farrakhan and his attacks on the Jewish faith, or at least, not very many. Thus, no one is going to be out there telling readers and viewers that media stories on Farrakhan are somehow unfair.

The book The Way to Win talks about the "Freak Show." The Freak Show is the way the media covers politics and how it favors the right. The Freak Show helped elect George Bush and almost brought down the Clinton Presidency. The Freak Show focuses on personality, not policy, and magnifies every supposed "character" flaw of Democrats while ignoring such "character" flaws of Republicans.

The difference in coverage so far of the Hagee endorsement of McCain, which McCain sought out, compared to the endorsement of Obama by Farrakhan, which he Obama didn't seek out and didn't want, is an example of the Freak Show in action.

McCain Supports Bush's Plans for Social Security

Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security is back. McCain told the Wall Street Journal that he favors Bubble-Boy's approach to "fixing" Social Security. This approach calls for privatizing Social Security and was so unpopular with the public that the Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't even have the legislation introduced.

This is from the Wall Street Journal article:

On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.

He also came out in favor of extending BB's reckless tax cuts to the rich and lowering the corporate tax rate. This means, of course, that the United States would face even more deficit spending. This is also from the WSJ article:

Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.

In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.

So let's see what the McCain record is:

1. Doesn't care if the U.S. is in Iraq for a 100 years;

2. Makes jokes about bombing Iran;

3. Has flip-flopped on Bubble-Boy's tax cuts, being against them in 2001 and now for them in 2008;

4. Wants to privatize Social Security; and

5. Wants to cut taxes for corporations.

Conservative Talk Show Host Repudiated by McCain Claims He was Asked by DeWine to "Throw Red Meat to the Crowd"

Bill Cunningham, the right-wing talk show host from Cincinnati, who introduced John McCain at a rally last week using Obama's middle name and referring to him as a "Daley style" politician from Chicago, says he was recruited to do the introduction by former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine. He claims that he was recruited at a lunch by DeWine and Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters. Deters disputes that the recruiting took place at the lunch that he attended with DeWine and Cunningham. All of this is contained in an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Cunningham, who is now ticked off at McCain for apologizing to both Obama and Clinton for Cunningham's remarks, is telling his listeners that he cannot support the person he is calling "Juan Pablo McCain". (We are assuming that Cunningham is calling McCain Juan Pablo to point out McCain's support of immigration reform, but, since we are not a radical, right-winger, we can't be sure.)

One of the constant things we have been told by the media over the years is that Mike DeWine is some sort of "moderate" Republican. (Apparently if you don't foam at the mouth and howl at the moon, you are given "moderate" status by the corporate media.) Like all such "moderate Republicans", however, DeWine is not above using the radical, right-wingers when it serves his political purpose.

McCain: "Insulting to One's Intelligence" to ask How Long U.S. Will be in Iraq

Okay, this is one for the books: John McCain said that it is "insulting" to a person's intelligence to ask him how long he is prepared for American troops to stay in Iraq. Here's the quote from a Faux News Report:

Delivering a harsh rebuke to war critics, Sen. John McCain said Monday that it “almost insulting to one’s intelligence” to question how long the U.S. will keep troops in Iraq.

“Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war. The question is not how long we stay in Iraq, the question is whether we are able to reduce casualties, eliminate them, have the Iraqi military-as they are today-take over more and more of our responsibilities,” McCain said after a rally at the Virginia Aviation Museum.

The surge proponent ratcheted up his rhetoric today, accusing his Democratic rivals’ of having a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to fight a war.

“The argument is really almost insulting to one’s intelligence to say how long we’re in Iraq,” McCain said, noting that the U.S. has maintained thousands of troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan for decades. “The question is, will we be able to succeed with this strategy, which is succeeding, and withdraw American troops to bases out of harms way, eliminate the casualties, and have this counter-insurgency succeed—which we are on the path to doing.”

The reason why he has to use such rhetoric towards those who question his decisions on Iraq is that he has absolutely no idea how long he would keep American troops in Iraq. The reason why he doesn't know is that he is willing to cede control over whether American troops stay in Iraq and for how long to Iraqis. The reason why we say that he is ceding such control is that his plan would allow Iraqis to take as long as they want in establishing a political solution for Iraq because they wouldn't have to worry about our troops leaving. Basically, his approach is to enable the Iraqis to continue in their dynsfunction as long as they want.

We don't think that any American president should base the use of American troops on decisions that Americans don't control. We think that American troops should only be put in harm's way as a result of American decisions, not decisions by foreigners, whether such foreigners be English, French, German or Iraqi. There was a time when American presidents agreed with such an approach, but that belief is apprently passe on the Republican side.

Republicans Worried that McCain is too Abrasive to be President

Okay, think about this: The former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, thinks that John McCain is too abrasive to be president. Now Santorum was regarded by progressives as a right-wing whack job. He relished in belittling Democrats, yet he regards McCain's personality as too unstable for the demands of the Oval Office.

His, and other assessments of McCain's personality by Republican Senators, can be found in a Washington Post article dated February 4, 2008. Apparently, McCain's treatment of his fellow Republican Senators, as well as Democratic Senators, over the years makes his Republican colleagues very, very nervous about him assuming the White House.

There is also a article out from AlterNet that makes the argument that McCain may be very vulnerable against either Obama or Clinton. The article points out that McCain is not aging well and has appeared confused during the primary campaign. It also points out that most voters in the United States have not yet seen McCain in debates or in speeches. Once they do, their assessment of McCain might change.

Of course, the reason why progressives and Democrats fear McCain is that the media loves him. A lot of white,middle-aged male reporters, like Chris Matthews get "the vapors" when they get around McCain, to use a phrase coined by Maureen Dowd. They totally lose their objectivity and go into a state of idol worship. Whether that hero-worship will continue remains to be seen.

Another area where McCain is vulnerable is on how he has constantly shifted positions since he decided to court the religious right. When he decided to run for president in 2008 the famed "Straight Talk" Express apparently jumped off the track.

A aging McCain matched up against a vigorous Obama would be a problem for the GOP, especially since Obama doesn't seem to arouse the ire of the Republican base like Clinton does. Alternatively, a Clinton who comes across as cool, intellectual and focused on policy would be a problem for McCain during debates if McCain appeared unfocused and abrasive.

Then there is the whole issue of McCain's personal life which hasn't gotten the attention from the media that it might if he is the actual nominee. McCain came back from being a prisoner of war, shortly thereafter divorced his wife who was the mother of his sons and had stood faithfully by while he was a prisoner for seven years, and married a 25 year old heirness and used her family's fortune to run for Senator. Now, that's certainly an inspiring story.

What also must be kept in mind is that the reason why some Democrats like McCain, his willingness to occasionally challenge his fellow Republicans, isn't an endearing character trait inside the GOP. The GOP is a party that loves uniformity of ideas, and challenging orthodoxy doesn't cut it for most Republicans.

All in all, John McCain may not be the best GOP candidate to face the Democrats.

Media Swooning for McCain, But Do Regular GOP Voters?

As this article by Jonathon Alter on Newsweek.com shows, the mainstream media, aka the corporate media, is ready to swoon once again over John McCain. Quotes like this one show how much trouble any Democrat, but especially Hillary Clinton, will have with the media if McCain is the nominee:

Instead he's preparing for a possible sequel to a legendary insurgent campaign in 2000 that for reporters like me was the most fun we ever had in politics.

Political reporters like Alter seem to remember McCain's 2000 campaign the way a middle-aged man remembers the first time he fell in love when he was in college. Sort of rosy-hued with all her good points remembered and none of the bad.

What reporters like Alter are forgetting is that when the primaries in 2000 went from states like New Hampshire and Michigan, where independents could vote, to states like South Carolina and others, where only registered Republicans could vote, McCain started losing. While there is no doubt that Karl Rove's dirty tricks in South Carolina hurt McCain in 2000, what probably hurt him more is the fact that registered Republicans don't much seem to care for him. This is shown this time in Iowa where McCain isn't even competing.

So the question becomes whether the adoration of media writers like Alter will be enough to get McCain nominated. Probably not because the media has effect, but not power, if power is defined as the ability to bring about intended results. Nothing showed this more than the Clinton impeachment of the late 1990s. There is no doubt that most media types, especially those located inside the D.C. Beltway, wanted Clinton gone. Unfortunately for them, the public didn't and in the final analysis, the public got what it wanted, not what the media wanted.

Keep all this in mind when you start reading and hearing about the McCain "comeback" of 2008. Until McCain wins a state where independents can't vote in the GOP primary, such as South Carolina, all this media hype doesn't mean a thing.