MORE FLIPPITY FLOPPITY - John McCain

Continuing his efforts at giving sloppy wet kisses to the far right wing he chose not to court back in 2000, McCain took a huge jump into the realm of wingerville today by supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, back in 1999, John "Moderate Edition" McCain claimed that overturning Roe would be dangerours for women and would not support such a move. From Think Progress:

I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

Seven years can apparently change a man's mind, as John "Right-Wing-Jerry-Falwell-Courting" McCain now claims that the Supreme Court should not be legislating from the bench as they did on Roe and should most certainly be overturned by a newer high court decision so that the issue could be decided by the states. Further, he supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting a woman's right to control her own body.

Looking forward eighteen months into a future where McCain is the GOP nominee (no guarantee, to be certain), it behooves the Democratic candidate to pound McCain into the ground at every available opportunity on his flip flopping. His name should be Flip-Flop McCain whenever speaking about him. Not POW McCain. Not Maverick McCain. Flip-Flop McCain. The name should become so ingrained on the public's mind that Flip-Flop McCain should request that ballots list him as Flip-Flop McCain in order to avoid confusion for people who don't know who this John fellow is.

Seriously, if nothing else this is a good thing for our side. For years, we have been attempting to shine a light on John McCain, who is so adored by the media that they refuse to see him as anything other than the Maverick who occassionally talks tough to George W. Bush (but then inevitably toes the company line - remember the ban on torture?). This portrayal of him has been so infuriating because anyone who would choose to do even a cursory evaluation of his record would find that he is one of the most conservative members of his party, despite the Maverick nonsense. His decision to support the overturning of Roe v. Wade may go long way to convincing independent voters that McCain is most certainly not one of them. The final question will come down to media involvment - will they allow McCain to have his cake and eat it too? Can he continue to kneel at the altar of Falwell and the hard right wing while simultaneously getting a pass from the media because they like using the term "Maverick" to describe him?

LABEL REDUX - John McCain

First, Bush made famous the compassionate conservative moniker which basically amounted to next to nothing considering that time has borne out the fact that Bush is neither compassionate nor a conservative.

A couple of days ago, CNN developed the label moderate conservative and applied it to "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani. I'm assuming the moderate part of the label is to cover up any number of instances where Rudy would most certainly fall on the far end of conservative, including getting a few divorces, living with a gay couple and supporting a woman's right to choose.

Now joining the lexicon on pointless political spectrum labels, we have the common sense conservative, embodied by presidential hopeful John McCain. While I'm not precisely certain, could this be some sort of verbal exposition that diagrams McCain's obvious conservative streak that is somehow completely hidden in the light of the media as they continue to felate him with his maverick label? In other words, moderate and mavericky on the outside, conservative and squishy on the inside?

I suppose my only question now is, what's next? What presidential hopeful will step up with a brand new label? Perhaps Mitt Romney will come out as a Soft-and-Fuzzy Conservative - go give Mitt a hug - he's the cuddly conservative. Maybe Newt Gingrich can be the Mr. Rogers Conservative - he could wear cardigans and explain his economic plans with puppets.

THE PARTY OF FAMILY VALUES

For all their talk as the party of family values and the protectors of the sacred institution of marriage, it strikes me as sort of hypocritical that three of the top candidates for the Republican nomination in 2008 all just happen to be adulterers who have each been married at least twice. I speak of course of John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. And obviously I'm not the only one who sees a problem with this as former GOP congressman Bob Dornan (R-CA) is so incensed with it that he's considering a run for president. Dornan is the lovely little man with a, *ahem* excuse the expression, hard-on against gays and has said such lovely things as, "Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet?" and "Every lesbian spear chucker in this country is hoping I get defeated[,]" which he said to a Los Angeles television reporter in 1992.

While I personally find Dornan a repugnant human being, he does bring up a good point. One of these three men could be the torchbearer for their party, yet all carry with them an undeniable stench of hypocrisy as they go around courting the right wing of their party. It's just one more reason why I cannot wait for coming presidential election. This is going to be great to watch.

[h/t Americablog]


QUICK RUDY NOTE (via TPM Election Central):

It appears that CNN has created a new political label for "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani. In announcing John McCain's formation of an exploratory committee, the prerequisite step for announcing one's candidacy.

McCain's name recognition can only be matched by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to form a committee last week. The moderate conservative's performance in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks earned him praise and fame across the nation.

Moderate conservative? Whaaaa?!? Is that like telling my little daughter not to touch a recently turned-off oven because it's warm hot? As a reader to TPM noted:

So now they've invented a new classifaction just for their sweetheart. He gets to be both a moderate and a conservative. This way, the conservatives are re-assured, as are the general public.
Will they describe Hillary -- or any of the Democratic contenders -- as "moderate progressives"? Don't hold your breath.

So, CNN has taken it upon themselves to make up labels for a candidate they cannot stop tripping over themselves to pump up. You can call him whatever you want, and it won't make up for the fact that Rudy supports rights for gays and is an adulterer involved in a terribly messy divorce during his time as "America's Mayor". It's no stretch in punditry to suggest that there's no chance this type of resume will fly with primary voters. No matter what he's labeled.

FIRE THE BOOKER

MEET THE PRESS

This past Tuesday, the Democratic Party made history. In one fell swoop, the party of the people took back control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also did so without losing a single seat that was previously held by a Democrat, which is all but unheard of. And, in recognition of this most momentous occasion, our liberal press, in the form of Meet the Press, has scheduled exactly zero Democrats to appear.

Given the strong majority now enjoyed by the Democrats in the House, perhaps it might have been a good idea to interview someone like Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi or perhaps one of the candidates running for Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer or John Murtha. Think again. Equally frustrating is the fact that the election was viewed in many quarters as a repudiation of the Bush adminstration's running of the war in Iraq. With the fact of a Democratic Majority in the Congress and the anti-Iraq message sent, who does MtP choose to feature? None other than war supporter and minority party Republican John McCain and war supporter and non-Democrat Joe Lieberman.

I can think of no greater example of NOT having one's finger on the pulse of the public than these two bookings. Seriously, were there no Democrats willing to come on a discuss their plan for the direction of the 110th Congress? I understand that the mainstream media has an inexplicable hard-on for McCain (a erection not shared by most hard right Republicans), but what exactly does he truly have to offer in an interview? Aside from announcing his intentions to run for president in '08, having him on is a waste given that he is a member of the minority party and a supporter of a war policy that was widely repudiated by many Americans as they went to the polls last Tuesday. I suppose a case could be made for a Lieberman interview given his somewhat unique position in the Senate. It is not an interview that I would be interested in watching given that it will most likely be a retread of his statements in the past - namely a call for bipartisanship (though he obviously never misses a chance to practice said bipartisanship by jabbing at his mates among the Democrats) as he prances and preens at having snubbed his nose at the Democratic voters in Connecticut who decisively decided that he did not represent their interests any longer.

Overall, this is just a missed chance by our "liberal media" to feature the new majority's plans for America and instead choosing to partisans whose time in the limelight is quickly passing.

UM, OKAY

JOHN MCCAIN

Not wishing to advocate the death of a potential presidential candidate, I submit this without comment. From the Washington Post:

Arizona Sen. John McCain, a likely Republican presidential contender in 2008, joked on Wednesday he would "commit suicide" if Democrats win the Senate in November.

McCain, on a visit to Iowa to campaign for Republican congressional candidates, was asked his reaction to a potential Democratic takeover of the Senate in the November 7 elections.

"I think I'd just commit suicide," McCain told reporters, to accompanying laughter from Republicans standing with him. "I don't want to face that eventuality because I don't think it's going to happen."

Okay, one comment: If/when the Dems win control of the Senate, will there be a reporter willing to ask McCain if he should be under suicide watch?

WHEN IN DOUBT,
BLAME CLINTON

JOHN MCCAIN


Did you know that every single problem that the United States has faced, is facing or will ever face is the fault of one man, William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States. According to unnamed sources, Clinton was responsible for the events of 9/11 and may have actually coordinated the entire thing with Osama bin Laden. He may also have been involved in the military failure in Vietnam, undermined the McCarthy/HUAC hearings, flew a plane for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, triggered the Great Depression, shot Ferdinand to kickstart the Great War, shot Lincoln and framed up Booth and led the British troops against George Washington. I tell ya, the man has led a busy life. At least, that's what most Republicans would have you believe. In fact, Clinton is apparently to blame for all of ills facing America today (mind you, almost six years after he left office). Honestly, he was so busy screwing up this nation for the next generation that it's a wonder he ever had the time to get a blowjob from some White House intern much less kill Vince Foster and make it look like a suicide.
Today's participant in the "Let's Blame Clinton" game is none other than Mr. Straight Talk Express himself, John McCain! On Monday, in a campaign appearnace for a GOP senate candidate outside of Detroit, McCain blamed Clinton for the North Korean nuclear test, claiming “[I]t is a failure of the Clinton administration policies…that have caused us to be in the situation we’re in today”; a Clinton administrtion who's time in office ended in January of 2001 ... almost six years ago ... about 2000 days ago. Does everyone see where I'm going with this? Basically, according to McCain, the current president, who has been in office for the same 2000 days the Clinton has been out of office, bares no responsibility for what is going on in NK. The fact that Bush has obstinantly refused to engage in any direct talks with NK and has instead engaged in a foreign policy that can best be described as sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes tightly and screaming at the top of one's lungs, "LALALALALALALA," apparently has had no impact on the current situation in NK. For 2000 days, Bush has done little except exacerbate an already tense situation on an almost daily basis, but on the Straight Talk Express piloted by John McCain, the radio station must be tuned to ABC, as in Always Blame Clinton. At what point do these bastards accept responsibility for something? Will the Republicans be blaming Clinton in 2032 for things he did back in the 90s? Will there ever be a time when something isn't Bill Clinton's fault?

NOTE: Think Progress has an excellent timeline for "North Korea's Atomic March". I highly recommend checking it out. Here's a quick cheat sheet provided by TP:

Bush I: 1-2 bombs worth of plutonium
Clinton: Zero plutonium
Bush II: 10-11 bombs worth of plutonium and counting, first nuclear test

But, of course, it's all Clinton's fault.