Last 5 years...

Hmmmm......, I wonder why someone would choose the last 5... OH! It's the years the Republicans have been in power! Let's look at a similar list from the 1990's, shall we?

Have a look here.

There's no difference. Politicians are politicians.

Let's Compare!

In wake of Alaska Senator Ted Steven's indictment on seven felony charges, it may be prudent to look at the other members of Congress who've faced criminal charges in the last 5 years.

Democrats:
William Jefferson (Rep-LA) - indicted on charges of racketeering (and hiding $200,000 in his freezer).

Republicans:
Stevens
Larry Craig (Sen-ID): Pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct regarding a sex sting in a men's bathroom.
Bob Ney (Rep-OH): Sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for bribery with regards to the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Duke Cunningham (Rep-CA): Sentenced to 8 years in prison for taking more than $2 million in bribes.
Tom Delay (R-TX): Charged with money laundering and conspiracy - the case remains ongoing.

This doesn't include near-encounters with the law, such as Senator David Vitter (R-LA)'s involvement with the D.C. Madam. But it's clear, just from this list, which is the more ethical party - John McCain (ironically, a member of the Keating 5)'s protestations to the contrary.

Uh-Oh Indeed

Yeah, a two point lead in Florida and Ohio - both states which the Democrats lost in 2004 - is really cause for a lot of weeping. It's a lead, we'll take it.

Uh-oh!

Look, Josh, even your cherished electoral lead is dwindling quickly. Looks like Obama's gonna have to do more than just make nice speeches...

Dennis the Menace

It is now Dennis Kucinich's(D-OH) time to shine.

His claim to fame (and most controversial platform throughout his bid for the democratic presidential nomination) is finally being bought in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Notable Quote:

"It is my judgment that President Bush is the worst president that our country has suffered."
-Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)


atta girl.

Not to switch teams...

but if McCain really won't pick Jindal, can he please choose Sarah Palin-- another responsible Governor who'd be an unexpected choice but could spearhead the new Republican party as a group of responsible people who know how to lead? Apparently she's one of six finalists (see here)

Here Comes the Story of the Hurricane!

In an effort to steal some press time from Sen. Obama whose current Middle East tour seems to have a monopoly on the headlines, Sen. McCain planned a picturesque helicopter landing atop an oil rig; a seemingly unbeatable photo-op.

This may seem original, until you recall W's 'mission accomplished' fighter-jet stunt.

Not a good way to distance yourself from the current prez, Johnny Mac.

Nooooooo!

Not great news. More and more people, including The Economist, seem to join Gabe in predicting a Romney ticket. I am convinced it would be a disaster; I like Romney, but he cannot add anything to a ticket. 

Hate to "beat the dead horse"...

Another gaffe-for-thought

I don't really think these errors mean an awful lot, I just feel as though a man running for president should have these minor details (e.g. the name of the country you're discussing) down pat. It doesn't say much about his ability to govern over time, but it does say plenty about his overall awareness and competence on-the-spot.

Jindal!!??

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_to_meet_with_jindal.html

Wow

Look at this!

Rudy Giuliani Can't Take a Hint

An article in the New York Post today mused about a potential Rudy Giuliani candidacy for governor of New York in 2010. The first emotion that I felt when reading this was ecstasy, for Rudy would surely lose, and then confusion. Why would he subject himself to yet another losing campaign? He ran for Senate in 2000 and dropped out due to health-related issues (plus a divorce, and being 10 points down in the polls), and, of course, he ran for President just this year and dropped out after winning a grand total of 0 delegates, and only coming in the top 3 in one state: Florida. Why would he now mount a campaign for governor?

Polls taken just before Super Tuesday this year showed Giuliani and McCain in a tight battle. Now, Giuliani ended up dropping out before then, so we'll never know how he truly would have done, but the result probably wouldn't have been favorable to him. To quote Peggy Noonan, "On 9/10/01 [Giuliani] was a bum, on 9/11 he was a man, and on 9/12 he was a hero. Life can change, shift, upend in an instant." Yes, it can, and his failed attempt at the Presidency shows that it does. Time Magazine's 2001 "Person of the Year"'s approval rating plummeted from 64% (2/07) to 45% (1/08).

Look, if Rudy Giuliani needs to fuel his already enormous ego by mounting yet another failed bid for an office for which he is so underqualified, that's fine. If he really wants to put himself through another year or so of endless flip-flopping, running of the mouth, and performing badly in debates, that's his choice. But he isn't in the heartland anymore, where people only know Giuliani for his heroism after 9/11, which I'll grant him, and his supposed cleaning up of New York, which I won't. He's back in New York, where people are mad at him for a variety of reasons. And does he really want to relive his seven-and-a-half years of poor mayoring, and one year of poor presidential campaigning? Probably not.

Veepstakes: 7/17 (Dems)

After examining John McCain's possible running-mate options yesterday, it's time to look at who Barack Obama could choose as his #2. Just to clear things up, these rankings aren't who I think it'll be, but what I think the order of preference is at this point in time. For instance, if McCain picked his VP today, I think it would be Romney. But in a month? We'll have to wait and see. To the rankings:

10. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)
9. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
8. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA)
7. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
6. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

5. Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
Well, there are a lot of incendiary picks in 6-10, but I shan't delve into them. Instead, coming in at #5, is a guy who has actually run numerous national campaigns before. John Edwards might have finished a distant third in the primaries, but his endorsement of Obama was important in assuring working class whites, for whom Edwards is a well-known advocate, that Obama would be a good fighter for them as President. However, he horribly mishandled being John Kerry's running mate in 2004, and one wonders if he wouldn't rather be Attorney General.

4. Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Kaine, who was one of the first non-Illinois politicians to endorse Obama, is seen as one of the Democratic Party's rising stars. The fact that he has only been in office for three years hurts in that he doesn't have any foreign policy experience, something Obama sorely needs. However, his youth (50), popularity, and geographical location make him a prime pick, and somebody who Obama will have to consider.

3. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
Speaking of governors who endorsed Obama and are appealing, yet have no foreign policy experience, here's Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. It's unclear as of yet whether Obama putting a non-Clinton woman on the ticket would help him or hurt him with the disaffected Clinton supporters, but she would help with moderates/independents. She hails from a deep red state that will give its six electoral votes to John McCain in the fall, but that midwestern appeal would surely come in handy.

2. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Biden has been in the Senate since the 1970s, made two runs for President, comes from a blue state, and has a tendency to run his mouth. That said, his foreign policy expertise is virtually unmatched in Washington and, despite his long tenure there, he still can convincingly play the part of a reformer. His off the cuff remarks can be cringe-inducing, but they can also be funny. It seems that he's on "Meet the Press" every week, so his visibility isn't a problem. While he seems more likely to be a Secretary of State candidate, Biden as VP wouldn't be a complete surprise.

1. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Evan Bayh is known in Washington circles for being boring. So then why, you may ask, is he #1 on my list of Barack Obama's possible running mates? Well, he doesn't need to be exciting. That's taken care of with the top of the ticket. If you can look past Bayh's lack of charisma, he has everything Obama could hope for. He's a young (52), handsome midwestern moderate, yet was governor of Indiana for two terms and has been in the Senate since 1999. He is quite popular in his homestate, which is shaping up to be a swing state in November, and has broad crossover appeal. The fact that Indiana and Illinois border each other would be a concern, were not Arkansas (Bill Clinton) and Tennessee (Al Gore) border states. Speaking of the Clintons, Bayh was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, and would ease the HRC/BHO divide. Bayh wouldn't be an exciting pick, but he would definitely get the job done.

Veepstakes: 7/16 (GOP)

As most of you know, I love the "veepstakes": the process of picking running-mates for each party. Between the end of the primaries and the beginning of September, those two important selections are the only two variables in the presidential race. Today, my rankings for McCain:

10. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
9. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
8. Senator John Thune (R-SD)
7. Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R-CA)
6. Former OMB Director Rob Portman (R-OH)

5. Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)
Palin is young (44), conservative, and tough: three things that John McCain could use some of on his ticket. Her sky-high approval ratings in her homestate, and her image as a reformer, would also greatly boost McCain's argument. Her age, unlike Jindal's, isn't a great concern, but she's relatively inexperienced, and recently gave birth, making it unlikely she'll want to spend a great deal of time away from home.

4. Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
Jindal is a conservative darling who the GOP sees as being a large part of its electoral plans in 2012 or 2016. However, his age (37) disables whatever attack lines McCain could use against Obama's age (46). He's also has a past of weird habits (such as performing exorcisms), and Jindal's hard-right stances on most issues might make him too conservative.

3. Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL)
McCain's big win in the Florida primary can be almost wholly chalked up to this man's endorsement. In November, as in January, Florida will be close, and having its governor on the ticket almost assures it stays in the GOP column. But rumors have persisted for awhile that Crist is gay, his engagement to Carole Rome notwithstanding, something that would certainly hurt him with the base.

2. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
Pawlenty was one of McCain's highest profile supporters during the primaries, and his ability to win elections in Democratic-leaning Minnesota is certainly not overlooked by McCain's staff. And, unlike many other blue-state Republicans, he's a veritable conservative. However, Pawlenty reportedly isn't being vetted, although you can take that with a grain of salt.

1. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)
Romney, ever the opportunistic politician, has taken to doing every thing he possibly can to become John McCain's running mate this November. Although they didn't agree on much during the primaries, with the two reportedly hating each other, that gap seems to have been closed. What seemed unthinkable about a month ago seems more and more likely by the day: McCain/Romney.

Tomorrow: Barack Obama's choices

New Jibjab

Not as good as they used to be, but decently funny

Bush-McCain Economic Differences

Much as I hate to disagree with Harry's last post, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) has thoroughly disabused me of the notion that Bush and McCain are similar on issues of economics. I'd watch the clip - it's rather edifying.

4 More Years of Bush Economic Policy?

Bush/McCain Overlap #763

Our fearless leader has killed the 27 year old moratorium on drilling offshore of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.





Bush's Announcement can be watched here.



All we can do now is sit tight and hope our congressmen and women have a spine. This will be tough, considering finding oil in the OCS could lower the already astronomical gas prices for their constituencies.

The definition of irony: The original moratorium was started by none other than Papa Bush.

Environmental agencies are up in arms about the risk that offshore drilling poses to the waters surrounding the US. However, some people aren't as convinced. For example:

'I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita. Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported.'
-Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

That is a lie. Here is the truth. And here. And here.

You know who else is on board with these lies? None other than Johnny Mac!

Here's his position (that is wrong).

Four more years of Bush. Makes me nauseous.

P.S. McCain supported the moratorium during his presidential bid in '99. Flip. Flop Flip. Flop.

About That Poll...

More about the recent tracking poll that showed Obama and McCain tied:

If a student had 4 Bs and a D in a class, everyone would agree it was absurd to call him or her a "D student," based on one grade that, everyone would agree, was probably an outlier. It might show that the student was slipping slightly in the class, or it might show, as of late, the class had gotten too difficult, and that the student would continue to get Ds. But we wouldn't know either way, and therefore, it would be absurd to say that the student will get a D in the class.

Similarly absurd was Jeremy's claim that the one Rasmussen Reports poll showing McCain and Obama tied was indicative of the fact that the race is now even. He would have been better off to consult a set of polling averages, such as this rather excellent one from RealClearPolitics, where he would have noticed that 2 other polls conducted in the same timeframe as the RR poll both showed Obama ahead by 3 points. So claiming, based off that, the race is tied is, well, suspect.

This was made even more obvious by the fact that today's RR poll has Obama up 2 points, a 2-point "gain" over the weekend. Now, mind you, it's unlikely that anything that happened this weekend had enough influence to move 2 points - which is why this poll, like the poll that showed the candidates tied, is just random noise - Obama remains, it seems, ahead by about 1-3 points.

Now I do think Jeremy has something when he claims that McCain has some momentum, however slight, in this contest - if the polling averages continue to tighten, his theory will be born out. For now, though, not so much.

Too Witty for Their Own Good

Yesterdays New Yorker Magazine cover depicted Barack and Michelle Obama as fun-loving Islamic terrorists, rejoicing in the oval office under a portrait of Osama.

Here is what bothers me about the cover:
Most people won't get it. As ridiculous as they are, these are accusations the Obama campaign have been struggling with. Cartooning him next to a burning American flag, even though the intent was clearly satirical, does not help his public image. It is rather obvious that visual media and advertising excites the American people more than the substance of what is being advertised. Thus, anyone that lacks the curiosity to peruse the pages of the New Yorker, and merely glances at the cover page, may not

Here is what bothers me the most about the cover:
It's not funny. Even if people did get it, they wouldn't laugh. I believe its rather stale, in fact.

Let Me See You Move Like You Come From Colombia...

Apparently, we won't be getting our Colombian exports cheap, at least in the near future.  The New York Times reports that the free trade deal with Colombia that the Bush administration has negotiated is stalling in Congress.  Unlike most free trade deals, Democrats are not opposed to this agreement because of the (short-term) loss of American jobs.  Rather, opposition to this deal has been galvanized by reports of killings of union members and other labor injustices in Colombia

Now, it's all well and good for the US to use its economic power to ensure fair labor standards in other countries, but we also need to examine the root causes of these problems.  What is the best way to stop violence, a trade in drugs, poverty, etc.?  The answer is simple: economic growth.  Economic growth is essentially a panacea for almost all non-environmental problems.  No, change doesn't come about as quickly as we'd like, but there is no better solution for violence and unrest than rising incomes for citizens.  Think of our own country.  Child labor was legal less than 100 years ago.  Around the same time, the US often had violent labor strikes.  These occurrences, while regrettable, are essentially unavoidable in a growing nation, but they do disappear once prosperity is achieved.

If we truly seek to bring about prosperity and justice in developing nations, the only way to do it is by jump-starting their economies, and there is no better way to do that than free trade agreements.  We should, indeed, insist on some environmental and labor standards as conditions of our free trade deals.  However, we must remember that governments in these countries will become truly concerned with environmental and labor problems only after economic stability has been secured.  Governments get forced out if their people can't afford to eat.

So, we have two options.  We can either block free trade deals like this one while satisfying our consciences, or we can allow them to go through and begin the process of actually helping the global poor to prosperity.  Yes, there are some bad short-term consequences, but we can't allow this myopia to hinder agreements that would bring about greater prosperity for all nations involved.

A Sigh of Relief

The past two presidential elections have been nail-bitingly close. Luckily for us Dems, I don't think we'll have to worry about the Green Party tipping the scales in favor of John McCain this year as they may have done with W in the past.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

Cynthia McKinney!

To be quite honest, I do not see the logic in appointing an African American woman with such a rich history of congressional controversy to run in the face of the first African American democratic nominee. Is the Green Party trying to divide the solidified African American voting bloc, that has poured into voting booths in record numbers to show their support of Obama? Not to mention how very hard the Obama campaign is working to solidify the women's voting bloc? It seems as though if McKinney was to attract some sort of following (which she won't), the votes she'd be taking from the Democratic party are the votes we need the most.

As I said, I don't envision this appointment to have much of an affect on the race at this point. In fact, after taking so much heat for the '00 and '04 elections, it makes sense that the Green Party would nominate someone that will seemingly amass a fraction of the already staggeringly low .1% of Green Party voters that took to the polls four years ago.

We're actually not tied!

Ah, Jeremy, if only it were that easy. If we elected presidents via popular vote, then I would agree with you. But, unfortunately for y'all, Obama's lead in the electoral college (which, last time I checked, was the only thing that mattered) is about 100 EVs at this point. I assume everybody here has at least visited either Electoral-vote.com or FiveThirtyEight.com, but if you haven't you should. They cull statewide polls and amass an electoral projection. In any case, looking at the most recent statewide polls, it is clear that Obama has a clear lead over McCain. Let's see what polls should make all Republicans very cautious before they flaunt some immaterial national leads. I have cobbled together a makeshift table. It doesn't look pretty, but you can kind of read it. I don't know why blogger doesn't acknowledge multiple spaces. Oh well....

State EVs Obama McCain 2004 Net Bush
AK 3 41 45 27
IN 11 48 47 21
OH 21 46 45 2
MT 3 48 43 20
ND 3 43 43 27
VA 13 49 47 9
Tot 54 - - 106

This is not including 2004 Bush states such as IA and NM, which are almost certain to go for Obama in November. This is also not including states like MS, TX, GA, and SC: states in which McCain is ahead by 5-10%, but Bush won by well over that in 2004. The states above need to go Republican. Some for electoral reasons (OH), some for overarching reasons (MT, ND). If McCain loses Ohio, the ballgame's over. If McCain is losing ruby red states like Montana and North Dakota, there's a much larger problem with the Republican brand.

Obama is expanding the map, despite what national polls say. The Newseeek poll released yesterday is another example of a "tightening" race, but see here for why you should take that with a grain of salt. The fact is that the Republicans are on defense all around the country. In November the Democrats will probably gain about 10-15 House seats and 5-7 Senate seats. That kind of down-ticket support can only help Obama, especially in red states where the Democrat looks poised to win (such as AK and MS).

So Jeremy, you may crow about some national tracking poll, but it means nothing. In 1880 James Garfield won the popular vote by .1%, but won the electoral college by 59 electoral votes. History (see: 2000) has shown us that the popular vote is irrelevant, except when campaigns and supporters try to trumpet them as proof of some sort of success. Concerning Obama's move to the center, it doesn't matter. The campaign doesn't begin until the last balloon falls out of the Xcel Center ceiling on September 4th.

Frankly, what either of the candidates does now, barring a macaca moment, won't help or hurt them come November. In a few weeks, what Obama said about campaign finance will be forgotten, as will whatever gaffe McCain made on any given day. Policy changes might get noticed now, but they don't matter until the real campaign begins. National polls, on the other hand, will never matter.

We're tied!

Another poll suggesting what is beginning to become clear: Obama has squandered the lead. Here's why, I think: liberals like Gabe will argue that all Obama is doing right now is conducting smart politics-- every presidential candidate lurches to the center after a primary. The difference is that most presidential candidates have something to show for themselves besides pretty language and an unusual and advantageous (at least for politics) background. When Obama starts talking about changing Washington, he is appealing-- no doubt about it. But he has to actually stick to it. The answer is that you can't play the "nobody cares" card when you go back on your word on campaign finance and still claim the "I'm an outsider" card, too. Obama can't have his cake and eat it too, and, after all, what good is a cake you can't eat?

Away For A While

I'm off to vacation for three weeks - depending on how bored I get, I may or may not be visiting here much.

In terms of politics, I doubt I'll miss much at home while I'm gone: it seems that this presidential race has settled comfortably into a slight to moderate lead for Obama, and, barring some sort of real scandal, that's unlikely to change before the conventions. Republicans can make hay over the fact that there's a new Newsweek poll out that shows a 12-point decrease in Obama's lead from their last poll, Democrats can point to polling that shows Obama ahead by anywhere from a 1 to 12 point margin. Really, when so much of the electorate isn't paying tons of attention to the campaign this summer, the polling will necessarily be all over the place - and this isn't likely to settle down until late August (although the naming of the vice presidential candidates, expected to come in early August, should shake things up slightly). In the mean time, look for more minor scandals and feigned outrages - the Obama camp will try to use Phil Gramm's remarks as fodder, and McCain's people will find something else to use against Obama.

What I will be following closely while I'm gone, though, is July 24th's by-election in the Scottish constituency of Glasgow East. For those interested in British politics, this is quite a big deal - a defeat for the Labour Party at the hands of the Scottish Nationalists could cost Prime Minister Gordon Brown his job. Although I tend to agree with Labour on most issues, I've become quite sick of Gordon Brown, and have come to believe that Labour would be better off without him. So, rather paradoxically, I'll be rooting for the rather loony Scottish Nationalists in this election, and for a major shakeup of the United Kingdom's political leadership. More on this later, perhaps.

Can We All Just Calm Down Now?

To all of you who truly suspect Iran is near capable of producing a nuclear weapon:

Take this!

Ah, the tell-tale sign of an administration that is truly confident in their defense policy: adding extra missiles to a photograph via a sloppy Adobe Photoshop edit.

Real Picture

Edited Picture

Ahmadinejad's administration must work on their copy-and-paste skills if they are going to be taken seriously. However, the most laughable aspect of this punchline of a news story is how serious of a threat the Bush administration (along with our Israeli allies) currently considers the Iranians to be. This isn't the first time this has happened to the US, either. Throughout the Cold-War, the USSR would parade giant (and fake) warheads around town...for forty years.

Also, the USSR had a few real ones, and had them pointed right at our backyard.

Did we invade them? No.
Did they pose more of a threat that modern day Iran. Absolutely.
Do they even pose a legitimate threat to Israel?! God no

So can someone please tell me why the invasion of Iran is still even on the table? The most insulting thing Iran has done to the United States may very well be the release of that aforementioned photo...It offends the American intellect.

However, I do hear that many Iranian officials make a mean Excel spreadsheet, so I guess they're redeemed.

FISA In-Fighting

As most of you probably know, the updated FISA passed the Senate yesterday, 69-28-3. Leaving aside my and many others' outrage concerning the telecom immunity, it seems as if many people have picked up the wrong narrative for this story. Markos Moulitsas, who is usually correct in his political analysis, has been writing about this vote in terms of givings in to the President's demands. Now, before the liberal blogosphere gets in any more of a tizzy, a simple look at Senator Obama's stance on this bill should assuage any fears of a weak Democratic caucus.

Obama voted yea on all three amendments to modify the immunity clause. Dodd's, which struck the whole clause, failed 32-66-2. Specter's, which limited the scope of the immunity, failed 37-61-2. Bingaman's, which stayed immunity cases until 90 days after the Inspectors General report on FISA, failed 42-56-2. So there were 27 people who voted for that last amendment, but also voted for the final bill. While Obama's votes might have been more in tune with the party line, it seems as if he was not alone.

With regards to the 8 Democrats who couldn't even vote for Bingaman's bill, it is perhaps just that they are more conservative than the base would like them to be. The rest of the Democrats saw an imperfect bill that they would have liked amended, but they realized that this was the best compromise that would come out. As Senator Russ Feingold astutely pointed out yesterday, Obama does not support immunity, and electing him President would almost certainly help in restoring civil liberties to the American people.

So please, while dissent is good now and then, this election is way too important to let slip away. Party activists who say they are now not voting for Obama are only killing the Democrats' chances in November. It seems as if rational thinking has gone out the window, and every bill that passes with which Bush agrees is because the Democrats capitulated to "Mr. 28%." Don't think for a minute that the Democratic caucus is running scared. A diversity of opinions is what this country was founded upon. Perhaps it is that that the Democrats are exhibiting, and not some treasonous capitulation. It's high time that the Democratic Party base stop fighting with itself, and turn to focus its vitriol on Senator McCain.

PS: How did John McCain vote on FISA? He couldn't even bother to show up.

Oh, C'mon Jesse

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4aLGkFpsdHo
Honestly.

We now know Jesse Jackson, former spiritual adviser to President Bill Clinton , is a eunuch enthusiast.

And I thought the Obama campaign was trying to emphasize diplomacy. Does Jackson want to sit down and talk with Obama? No. Maybe he'd like to explain how to articulate he's feelings towards African Americans in a more suitable way? No.

Lets skip that and move straight to castration.

McCain Gaffe #318

Dear Reader:

"He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly."
--Proverbs 14:29

Certainly, John McCain has made mistakes on the campaign trail before. We've seen his confusion concerning al Qaeda and regarding Sunnis and Shiites, and we've been made aware of his rather erroneous views on the safety of Baghdad. But perhaps the most emblematic mistake of all was McCain's odd choice to sing along to Beach Boys' song (a shoutout to the blog's resident enthusiast) "Bomb Iran." That gaffe was potent because it played into the deepest concerns about McCain: that he was volatile, somewhat of a loose cannon, and, most of all, a warmonger.

These notions were only reinforced on Tuesday when McCain brought his latest gem of hypermilitaristic humor to the campaign trail.

Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."

He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.

Rather interesting, no? One would think that, given the political climate and the media's burning desire for a slipup, McCain's aides would be competent enough to prevent their senator from continuing this line of rather puzzling jokes. But apparently not - and this gaffe is especially dangerous because of what it reveals about McCain: that his first thought when it comes to Iranians is, well, "killing them." Troubling indeed - McCain shows more and more that he may lack the eventemperedness to serve as a peacable leader of the free world.

P.S.: Yay, I made a post! Now Jeremy can make fun of me...
P.P.S.: Major props for the smurf.

The inherent stupidity of liberals...

is baffling. More to come later.

A Word On U.S.-Russia-China Relations

After spending the day observing a round table discussion at the United Kingdom's Royal United Services Institute, one comment from a certain contributor (Director of Studies at RUSI) stuck with me:
He began with explaining how nowadays, the government and media seems to heap both Russia and China together, making them out to be allies, and a single threat to the United States. He then asked those listening to think of the manner in which Americans think of Chinese politics, calling it "schizophrenic", implying that there are many voices in our heads constantly guessing at what is going on in Beijing. In reality, however, we truly do not have a politically transparent relationship with China by any means. He compared this exact relationship to the way in which Russia looks at China, completely undermining the common view that Moscow and Beijing are on the same page.
This is a tad controversial, and I am sure it will spark a response from a fellow contributor. However, it is a bit comforting to know that our friends in Moscow have no idea what the Chinese are doing, either.

Welcome, friends!

Welcome to the new Mecca of political commentary and analysis, Straight From 607!

Hello!

Greetings and salutations!