I'm not nuts about the guy, but I'd trade him for Lieberman any day of the week.

Never let it be said that McCain doesn't believe in anything--he believes in getting elected president.

Pretty stupid to launch a presidential campaign as a Republican if he knew this was lurking in the background. He should've known it would come out, and disclosed it himself first. Then he could have at least spun it his way, instead of having to react.

I may be biased, though -- while I'm not left-wing, McCain lost me forever with his "campaign finance reform".

I remember the buzz about McCain and Leiberman swapping sides.

If this is true, this is great news. Rightwingers will never vote for Romney, McCain would be toast and the Republicans would be left to nominate Guiliani, with the fundamentalists splitting the ticket running a fringe candidate or a third party.

Then the choice would be Clinton or Obama.

That wasn't supposed to come out for a year and a half.

McCain is toast; probably was already, but this removes all doubt.

And McCain might try "straight talk" (i.e., honesty) once more. It could work, and his continual lying obviously isn't working.

This guy was toast when he grabbed his ankles for Bushco when they swiftboated him during the 2000 election cycle.

What FitterDon said.

What Boronx said FitterDon said.

Rudy has come out saying that he wants Princess Judy to sit in on cabinet meetings. You get two for the price of one. That didn't go over very well for the Clintons. Rudys toast! McCains toast!Mitts in a Cult and wears funny longjohns. Toast! Is America redy for a president named Huckabee? I don't think so. Hunter,Brownback,ect. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'd take Ron Paul, but he has as much chance as Dennis K. Here it comes....Rightwingers are crazy....He's crazy.....NEWT NEWT NEWT NEWT...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is funny. Daschle is a Republican who also ran as a Democrat.

McCain's candidacy is toast because he is not anti-Iraq occupation enough and because he looks older than toast.

Soon all candidates will be claiming to be more anti-Iraq occupation than their peers. Then they will support a trillion dollar defense budget to counter the age of jihad. Then they will luncheon at a five star restaraunt with a defense contractor.

I forgot. James Dobson said Fred Thompson ain't Christian enough. HAHAHAHAHAHA

WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! There's JEB! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

R.L. - You're clearly having too much fun with this.

When you compare this story to McCain's total suckup to Bush after 9/11, suddenly the word 'craven' just isn't strong enough.

Can't have folks sloshing all over the political landscape, can we Hawk? There is absolutely no grounds for having an open mind and reassessing a stagnated world view.

McCain aside, does it really destroy one's credibility in Washington that in taking into consideration all the new information available today , one's view point might experience some changes in a flexible and diverse global economy?

Is one interpretation of this being that the Republican machine allows its politicians to grow and mature in their wide-range view of the world, as long as they stay within the confines of the GOP grid?

oh gawd! It's not bad enough that we have "Democrats" like Lieberman . . .

R.L.:You get two for the price of one. That didn't go over very well for the Clintons.

You don't understand. It's okay if you're a republican! Infidelity, divorce, you name it! Stop living in the past!

If you're a Democratic woman, however, and you "stand by your man" through infidelities etc., you're morally defective.

I believe this is a leak from people who want McCain to stop running so he can go into treatment. It's an intervention. The man needs help, before he goes walking around loose in Baghdad, or does something else that will get himself hurt.

Dobson is the Democrats best friend right now. Every time one of these GOP candidates bends over and kisses his ring or his ass every moderate voter sidles a little more to the left.
Like the bumper sticker says, "I Love God But His Followers Are Starting To Scare Me".

I'm certainly glad that McCain didn't switch; we'd have two Lieberman "Democrats".

That said, if it helps this guy win the R nomination, all the better.

Back in the day, there was talk of Kerry trying to get McCain to run as Vice. McCain is as sanctimonious as Lieberman but less unctuous. That's two bum potential Vices in two elections. Let's hope judgment has improved.

Hey, he can just run on the Imaginary Broder Party ticket if it looks like the GOP won't have him.

It's more likely that Daschle and Downey discussed this with McCain than the other way around. Prior to the 2004 elections a switch of one Senator to the other party could have been critical to control of the Senate; the bitterness of McCain's staff -- especially of John Weaver -- over the 2000 GOP primaries may well have suggested that McCain could be the guy to switch. This same suggestion prompted John Kerry's efforts to talk McCain into running on his 2004 ticket.

Anything's possible, but this strikes me as likely being more about John Weaver than John McCain. Any delay or awkwardness about the campaign's response is probably also about Weaver, who McCain still likes and trusts but who is not as central to his effort this time as he was in 2000.

There is absolutely no grounds for having an open mind and reassessing a stagnated world view.

Hey, Hawk shows no sign of having reassessed his/her/its stagnated world view despite the tide of failure, incompetence, mendacity and corruption from the Republicans.

Which is the bigger joke: Someone as right wing as McCain thinking he could win as a Democrat, or the Democrats being so desperate for a plausible candidate that they considered it?

Did John McCain seriously consider switching to the Democratic Party in 2001

Yes, but then 9/11 changed everything!!!

Rightwingers are crazy....He's crazy.....NEWT NEWT NEWT NEWT...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: R.L. on March 29, 2007 at 3:36 PM

So if the GOP is crazy enough to nominate Newt and you guys put up Hillary or Obama, who do you think would win?

My guess would be Newt.

There is a procedure for drumming someone out of the Republican Party. [don't make a Kevin Drum joke here, you ninnies.]

The person to be driven from the Republican Party is stripped of their tie and forced to wear an off the rack suit from Sears with a white shirt that has no buttons on the collar and no cufflinks. The accused is marched in bare feet before two lines of bankers, Congressmen, and lobbyists--all Masons and all in good standing. Jeers are reserved until the proclamation is read. It generally says something to the effect of "Whereas, forthwith, and so on and such as to be made permanent."

A simple, overturned drum is then smashed and the sticks are thrown into the air. The lot is set ablaze. The person who is being drummed out of the Republican Party is to bunny hop out of the formation and can only be taken home by public transportation. His name is never spoken again and his picture is sent to a sex offender registry. He is generally not seen in polite society ever again.

John McCain, I nominate you to be drummed out of my beloved Republican Party, forthwith. Can I have a second to this motion?

What Boronx, FitterDon and chaunceyatrest said.

oh gawd! It's not bad enough that we have "Democrats" like Lieberman . . .
Posted by: JeffII on March 29, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Let alone "Democrats" like Clinton. yeesh.

Sampson toasts Gone-zales!

You mean the Iraq War that you helped make possible with your vote for Ralph Nader? Donkey.
Posted by: Pat on March 29, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

It wasn't a vote for Ralph Nader.

It was a vote against Lieberman.

Don't believe for one second that we would not be in Iraq if Lieberman was VP.

Somebody here was stupid enoygh to say Newt would win.Damn that's funny.

From the article:

..His (Kyle Sampson's) comments contradicted Gonzales' earlier denial of being involved in the firings, as well as the attorney general's suggestion that two other Justice Department officials misled Congress about the firings because they had been badly briefed.

"I don't think it's accurate if the statement implies that I intended to mislead the Congress," Sampson said. "I shared information with anyone who wanted it. I was very open and collaborative in the process."

Sampson also testified the prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support Bush's priorities, defending a standard that Democrats called "highly improper."

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said.

"Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities," he said. "In some sense that may be described as political by some people."

Hours before Sampson's testimony, the Justice Department admitted that it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post in Arkansas for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin.

Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production."

No evidence of obstruction of a corruption investigation...yet...

This could be a Brilliant move by Mcain,Fact:The Christian right are not very patriotic they will stay home if they don't have a horse in the race.The 29% hanging on to the sinking SS Bush won't vote for Mcain.The rest are split between Rudy and Mcain,He may be looking for a few Reagan Dems for help.What elese does he have?

A.H.

I've asked before and I doubt that I'll get an answer but I really am curious.

Do you get paid by the post or is it strictly a salary position? Also, do those that pay you, do you have to submit the actual comments that you make?

My guess would be Newt.

We'll lump that in with all the other insightful political commentary you've offered here, Chicounsel.

Actually McCain officially became toast after this CNN interview with Wolf. It's now the "straight jacket express."

You accuse Bush of being too partisan in his policies, and then you turn around and lambast McCain for trying to build bridges.

You can't have it both ways, Kevin.

But as usual, liberals will take any factoid and twist it into an attack on conservatives.

Don't believe for one second that we would not be in Iraq if Lieberman was VP. Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld

WTF? If Lieberman were VP, he'd be doing the same thing most VPs have done historically - attending the funerals of B-Level national leaders and occasionally mounting the bully pulpit for President Gore on a less than popular issue. He'd have been kept about as far away from the controls of state as Bush is now by Cheney.

WTF? If Lieberman were VP, he'd be doing the same thing most VPs have done historically - attending the funerals of B-Level national leaders and occasionally mounting the bully pulpit for President Gore on a less than popular issue. He'd have been kept about as far away from the controls of state as Bush is now by Cheney.
Posted by: JeffII on March 29, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

. . . yeah, and clearly, Cheney has had no role at all in the Iraq war.

No sane Democrat would have the man as a gift, or even in trade for Lieberman.

So if the GOP is crazy enough to nominate Newt and you guys put up Hillary or Obama, who do you think would win? My guess would be Newt.

Well, anything's possible, I suppose, Chicounsel, but I recall your recent prediction that Scapegoat Libby was going to be acquitted on all counts.

I don't think Newt could beat either one. Getting the GOP nomination alone, given all the baggage he carries, would be fodder enough to sink his chances: a few ads about his personal history, noting the utter hypocrisy of the religious right in accepting him (which they'd have to do for him to get the nomination), would send independents in droves to the Dem candidate.

Wasn't Hillary once a Republican?

Maybe that's why she and McCain seem so similar to me. Do anything to achieve goal.

I want to vote Democratic, but if she's the nominee, I'll abstain from voting.

Great minds, John Eaton. I used "Straight Jacket Express" earlier today.

Just what the Democrats needed -- another Joe Lieberman!

Wasn't Hillary once a Republican?
Maybe that's why she and McCain seem so similar

They seem so similar because they agree that the US must waste trillions of dollars on defense spending. It's the age of jihad, and they plan to milk that cow dry.

Rasmussen: Twenty percent (20%) of Americans give Congress a good or excellent rating these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 41% say the nation’s legislators are doing a fair job while 38% say poor.

[This represents] an improvement since the Democrats have taken power. In December, just 11% gave Congress a good or excellent rating while 47% say they were doing a poor job. That was the last survey conducted while the GOP was in charge.

Bush's Rasumuseen approval: 39%.

I guess we can put to rest that winger meme that Bush outpolls Congress, even if it was a desperate attempt to compare apples and oranges.

BTW, Pelosi is currently around 47-48% and absolutely stomping Bush.

Wasn't Hillary once a Republican? Posted by: jennifer flowers

Yep. And so was I, when I was twelve.

She has been, since college anyway, a Democrat, and began working for Democrats in law school, as I recall.

Um, Hillary changed parties in college (or somewhere around there) before anybody knew who she was. It was hardly part of a power grab. Meanwhile, McCain (alledgedly) temporarily turned his ideology upside down after being in the senate over 20 years because people might admire him as a maverick. Not the same thing. Lots of people change parties, sometimes even because they have honestly changed their views or felt the party has changed its views. And of course, this reason is much more likely when the person is in her twenties rather than sixties.

Also, people refusing to vote for Hillary are going to feel just as dumb as 2000 Nader voters if they hand the thing to the Republicans. Even Guiliani has promised to appoint wingnut judges, and except maybe for Hagel, none would be as good on the war. Hillary voted for the withdrawal so presumably she wouldn't veto it. Republicans voted against it and will veto it as long as they have the presidency. And where she is too hawkish, the party will force her to step back a little, while a moderate Republican would be pulled the other way by his party. Yeah, I'll have to hold my nose, but I'm not going to let pique, as deserved as it is, get in the way of doing what is best for the country. This mess needs to get fixed ASAP, and any of the (serious) Democratic candidates will be vastly better than any of the Republicans.

*snicker*

Benen's good...

Hawk,

People here think you are a paid partisan because your comments seem to hew so closely to the RNC talking points of the day. It isn't paranoid to see that, it's just called "noticing".

There is much more variety among the liberal commenters here. But among you and Al, I never see you deviate from Republican conventional wisdom, on ANYTHING, Iraq, GWB, Cheney, the Attorney firings, even your comment on McCain doesn't defend what he did, but instead you use it to criticize Hillary.

Heck, that's why we think you are paid. Most people here like to bark out what they think because it feels good to say it. If we hewed to a point as closely as you and Al do, that would be like a job where we always have to make sure we are towing the "party line".

So which think tank are you working for? Doesn't seem like AEI or Cato because they don't always agree with GWB or the R's. Hmmm, just thinking...

Back in the early '80's a Senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, I think, switched sides from Dem to Repub. The CW which still holds true for today, is that you can only switch once. I wonder if this counts as switching, or if, as in thoroughbred horsebreeding, you can have teaser ponies, to keep the damage from yourself?

That McCain would be Dewmocratic says a whole lot of bad about Democrats.

After first saying he was preparing a response, he now says he's decided not to comment.

So the Straight Talker is taking the fifth?

Chicounsel: "So if the GOP is crazy enough to nominate Newt and you guys put up Hillary or Obama, who do you think would win? My guess would be Newt."

Only if the GOP spikes the nation's water supply en masse with hits of window pane on Election Day, and we subsequently become strangely fixated on all the pretty colors we see.

I didn't vote for Nader. I voted for Gore in 2000. I want to vote for Gore in 2008 as well.

If Hillary is the Dem candidate, and since I live on the Left Coast, I'll wait to vote. A vote for Hillary will make me gag and I won't do it unless it is absolutely essential to rid the WH of Repubs. She, like McCain, will do anything to get elected. Unlike McCain, though, she's still got her marbles.

Destruction of the Myth of John McCain [VIDEO]

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 7:20 PM on January 28, 2007 at alternet.org/blogs/video/47350/

"Brave New Films put together this devastating film on "Straight Talkin'" John McCain's whack-a-mole positions regarding Iraq, gay marriage, and the Christian Right as the champagne smash across the bow of a new website, therealmccain.com.

One of the virgin blogs on the site includes a link to Sidney Blumenthal's chronicle of the destruction of the myth of John McCain. It's called: The Myth of John McCain. Here's a key passage:

McCain's political colleagues, however, know another side of the action hero -- a volatile man with a hair-trigger temper, who shouted at Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor to "shut up", and called fellow Republican senators "shithead ... f**king jerk ... asshole". A few months ago, McCain suddenly rushed up to a friend of mine, a prominent Washington lawyer, at a social event, and threatened to beat him up because he represented a client McCain happened to dislike. Then, just as suddenly, profusely and tearfully, he apologized.
So much for the Republican that the media believes has crossover appeal."

Just one fewer hurdle to an Edwards administration.

McCain is doomed anyway, because of the 14 year rule, which says:

No one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president (with only one exception since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.)

As stated, this rule wouldn't apply to Hillary Clinton. However, she was such an integral political part of the Clinton Administration that I think it does pretty much apply to her. In short, her problem, and McCain's is that they have grown stale in the perception of the voters.

You mean the defense boom you helped make possible by your vote for Ralph Nader?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Steve. I have been thinking about the persecution of Mensheviks by the Bolsheviks after they consolidated their power, and the DLC attacks on Nader voters are a similar political phenomenon. Persecuting those with slight differences is very important in party politics. Democrats hate Nader but want bipartisanship with Mitch McConnell. Democrats can work with scum like that, but have difficulty finding common ground with someone who is on their side.

The apt historical analogy is the Communists (Naderites) persecuting the Socialists (Dems) in Wiemar Germany.

I spent maybe thirty minutes a day reading and commenting on blogs, and it's all in my free time.

Okay, I'll accept that. Not paranoid at all. If you can't see the blatant corruption inherent to this administration, well then you are... oh hell we already know that you are blind partisan.

Now then, can you explain why this administration can do absolutely no wrong in your view?

The inanity of your comments have really become self-parody now:

Republican candidates can't possibly respond to every smear that lying Democrats make up.

So, what you are saying is that nothing that Democrats do in oversight is legitimate? Are you so used to oversight that you think this administration is squeaky clean... and simply because they call themselves "Republican" that there is no way that they would take advantage of their overwhelming power for the past 6 years?

By all means keep posting, I find it infinitely entertaining.

There goes left-wing troll nutcase Brojo comparing the Democrats to the Bolsheviks. Anything to justify Nader, a mirror image of, oh, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer with Bush. When it comes to narcissus collosus, Brojo, you da MAN!

Democrats hate Nader but want bipartisanship with Mitch McConnell. Democrats can work with scum like that, but have difficulty finding common ground with someone who is on their side.

Here's where I get to explain something for nothing to you, sir.

First of all, those of us who are old enough to remember the plucky young Ralph Nader testifying before Congress, the "unsafe at any speed" Nader know full well that there is a cult of personality around him. He was kind enough to allow his overinflated and self-important ego to interject into the 2000 race a bit of the old "Ross Perot" magic which gave us Bill Clinton.

A word to you sir--Nader is neither a Democrat or a Republican in any sense of the word. He is one of a select few that operates in his own stratosphere, where mere mortals are unable to convince him that the steaming pile he abandoned on the sidewalk after a lengthy squat does, in fact, stink to high heaven.

Nader? A viable candidate for anything other than obscurity? Please.

Honestly, Simp, you liberals are so paranoid that conservative commentators are getting paid

They're paying you a compliment, Hawk. They're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you couldn't possibly actually believe the inane and dishonest things you say to defend the indefensible.

Uh, Norman: George HW Bush recieved a whopping 37% of the vote in 1992. Normally an incumbant merely needs to be breathing to get 40% of the vote as a baseline and build from there. Go read some American history and try to find, outside of 1912 (Wilson-TR-Taft) when this astonishing repudiation of any incumbent occured. The anti-incumbent vote in 1992 was 63%. Perot merely denied Clinton a landslide, when he re-entered the race in October. It was only Perot that made Bush 41 competative.

Oh, one more, please! Long after Nader gave us Bush (and remember Nader's supporting Bush in the Florida re-count), years later (like in Harpers in '03), Nader ranted, "The Democrats must be punished!" Yeah, what an ally.

George HW Bush recieved a whopping 37% of the vote in 1992. Normally an incumbant merely needs to be breathing to get 40% of the vote as a baseline and build from there. Go read some American history

Stop right there, son. I am a master of American History. And, for the information of those of you still paying attention, virtually none of the Perot supporters would have voted for a Democrat or for Clinton.

The "anti-incumbent" vote of 1992 was, in actuality, a revolt by conservative Republicans--led by Pat Buchanan and then exploited by that jug-eared junebug from Texas--against the decision by GHWB to raise taxes.

What was the number one issue in America in 1992, sir? It was the economy, stupid, and none of the Perot people were seriously going to look at Clinton as capable of doing anything to improve the economy. The governor of Arkansas, for God's sake?

Read YOUR history. The success of Pat Buchanan in the early primaries, the "draft Perot" movement, which was bogus and which was, behind the scenes, peopled with fiscal conservatives and big business interests that were pissed as hell at Bush and Sununu and the foolish compromises they had made, coupled with the fact that Bush was a betrayer of the Reagan legacy and not really a "fiscal conservative." These are the reasons for that 8 year reign of terror by the Clintonistas.

You mean the defense boom you helped make possible by your vote for Ralph Nader?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Steve. I have been thinking about the persecution of Mensheviks by the Bolsheviks after they consolidated their power, and the DLC attacks on Nader voters are a similar political phenomenon. Persecuting those with slight differences is very important in party politics. Democrats hate Nader but want bipartisanship with Mitch McConnell. Democrats can work with scum like that, but have difficulty finding common ground with someone who is on their side.

Posted by: Brojo on March 29, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Really, I would think you would spend all your time thinking what you did to make your daddy so unhappy that he had to cheat on your mom so many times. It's obvious to me, of course, reading your posts. You are retarded and grating and I'm sure he just wanted to forget. But please. Tell us again how your vote for Nader adds up with your finger wagging about the war in Iraq? Moron.

The apt historical analogy...

I would say just another example, making attacks against like thinkers a phenomena. I do not think Nader and the Nader voters were members of an international organization bent on winning an economic class battle in a clash of ideologies, though. I think they were honest about why they opposed both Gore and Bush, wanting to make a real change in how establishment politics is practiced. Yes, it was a catastrophic failure. This country needs four parties.

When would an individual's vote be allowed to be cast for a candidate that was not a nominee of the Big Two parties? Should such a thing ever be done? Must every vote be considered as a chit for the party or as a bulwark against war and authority?

Blah. Blah. Blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Douche.

This country needs four parties.

Oh, put a sock in it. One couldn't make up trite, pithy and misguided analysis any worse than this. We need four parties like we need more fragmentation, more chaos and more weakness.

Ralph Nader? A viable option?

Nader raised his profile and guaranteed himself a seat at a table that he would never otherwise have received if he had merely worked for consumer safety and spoke out on behalf of consumers. He is an ego maniac who needed more and he got exactly what he wanted--a nihilistic pity party that handed America controversy and may well have caused a legitimate Bush victory to be forever stained with an asterisk.

My comments grate against you Steve.

My finger wagging about the war in Iraq is obvious to you that I voted for Nader. Thinking about what I am thinking? Like a child. I would think you would spend your time playing around in the woods. Remember, those were good times. They can come back the next time you make tacos. Use plenty of cheese.

Despite whatever drugs Brojo has made up his mind to use, I still believe a quart of diesel fuel huffed through a Grateful Dead T-shirt would make it much easier to understand what he is saying.

Blissed out, burned out, shirt-tail out, just floating away on a marshmallow cloud and stoned for all to see. That's our Brojo. When he pulled the lever for Nader, he was high as a kite and hasn't looked back.

Bravo, Brojo. I hope your employer realizes that by failing to analyze your urine, he or she is putting your co-workers at great jeopardy.

...the persecution of Mensheviks by the Bolsheviks after they consolidated their power...

Weren't these folks in the Wizard of Oz?

McCain a democrat that is real funny its like saying Lieberman is a democrat. LOL

Brojo and Norman deserve each other.

Norman, you liar. Look at the polls in the summer and fall, 1992 - a Clinton landslide. Your pretending that Perot didn't take away from Clinton reveals your hackery. The tracking polls but the lie to your assertion.

Pat Buchanan faded after the '92 New Hampshire primary.

And I'm too old for you to call me "son" - unless you can guarentee it reduced my grey hair without reducing my hair.

And for such a master of American history, you sure couldn't come up with my challenge of finding an incumbent who tanked worse than George HW Bush. 37% of the vote.

But maybe you're a better master of your domain.

I thought he was going to run as part of a "unity ticket" for the good of the nation, maybe with a Democrat, not run "as" a Democrat per se. If the former, non-wingnuts might admire him instead.

Kevin! Did you delete my post about how I was banging Brojo's mom? If you did, I understand and want you to know there are no hard feelings. I know you have a tough job and there has to be some sensible limits here. No more posting about me banging Brojo's mom because his Dad wouldn't. Cheers!

I was clearly over the line. Particularly in that part where I wrote that I couldn't understand what she was saying because her voice was muffled from being bent over the sofa. I've pulled myself together, though, and want to return to the repsonsible community of posters. My apologies.

McCain is that more durable of types, the Ego-a-Crat.

Ego-a-Crats describe all presidential wannabes, even third party ones.

Once again, folks, and I know most of you grasp this: There will be no third or fourth party until the Electoral College is abolished or radically modified, and there will be none of that until the Republicans get stiffed in a Presidential election. (And that nearly happened in '04 - if the Republicans in Ohio had been less good at suppressing the Democratic vote and the state had gone to Kerry.)

McCain blocks 9/11 funds
Sen. Clinton confronts McCain over blocked 9/11 funds
POSTED: 9:10 a.m. EDT, March 30, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, described as frustrated and animated, confronted presidential rival Sen. John McCain on the Senate floor after he blocked funding for a 9/11 responders' health care program, people familiar with the encounter told CNN....
McCain, R-Arizona, and two other fiscal conservatives, Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, and Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, objected to Clinton's amendment -- and its $45 million price tag....

McCain a democrat? He lacks the intellectual honesty and moral judgment.

….These are the reasons for that 8 year reign of terror by the Clintonistas.: Norman Rogers at 10:44 PM