MSM writer. Writes for Atlantic and New Yorker....
And you are trying to pass her off as a former McCain supporter?

Quite a lot of people said nice things about McCain e.g. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy (they did a bill together). But this is politics and everyone goes to their corner when the bell rings.

"..McCain is known in Republican circles to have a long memory..."

That would be prior to his current state of senile dementia. He can't remember where Spain is these days.

(These people insisted on anonymity because McCain is known in Republican circles to have a long memory and a vindictive streak.)

Not that that ever bothered her?

McAristotle - What part of Drew's opening sentence, "I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans’ whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, 'Citizen McCain.' " makes you think she isn't a former McCain supporter?

And McAristotle proves Neilt's Law yet again.

"The worse the news is for Republicans, the louder and more disjointed Right Wing Trolls become on Left Wing message boards"

I mean his last post quite literally has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Why not just say "Obama wants to kill babies" and be done with it?

neilt,
The trolls are now typing whatever the voices in their heads tell them to type.

Pretty fucking amazing yesterday when McEvil was in the General Motors plant yesterday gumming his bullshit about his new found interest in the "American Worker" .........this after voting against the minimum wage 19 fucking times ... and the plant of people went into a spontaneous chant "Obama, Obama" as is walking out ........ of course this part of the clip was scrubbed clean by all the Corporate Media except Keith Oberman .........

I even went to Columbia.

Umm, congratulations!? But otherwise, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Yeahm well it sounds like more ass covering rhetoric to me. I am glad to see people coming around to realize what a truly despicable person he is, but the truth is he has never been honorable or had integrity and all one had to do to discover this was a little research.

All admired John McCain, all held him in the highest regard, and all of have been disgusted as McCain has descended into a Republican hack.

Which is strange, really, since most of them don't express disgust with all the other Republican hacks on the political scene.

Speaking of disgusting Republican hacks, McAristotle writes, "And you are trying to pass her off as a former McCain supporter?"

She self identifies as a former McCain supporter and has the credentials to prove it. She wrote a hagiographic book about him, you idiot.

Your desperation to dismiss any unfavorable information -- "reality has a liberal bias!" -- reveals to those new here that you not only don't argue in good faith, but that you're nothing but a numbskull Rush Limbaugh true believer. What, did the Republican's desperation jerk you out of your jingoistic alcoholic haze, "Researcher"?

And Bush needed no encouragement to achieve failure in Iraq -- his incompetence was enough.

Jackass.

everybody who is starting to urn against McCain has already done their damage against Obama too. In a lot of these commentary pieces, the trend is: focus on the disgrace which the McCain campaign has bcome. Offer virtually no support to Obama or a third party candidate. These writers sound like disenchanted Hillary supporters. The honeymoon is finally over and they are not ready to rush into a relationship again. It would be great if they could get over McCain and help another candidate secure the election since we all now agree hat McCain is a fraud.

I really really liked McCain in 2000, so much so that I might have voted for him if I'd lived in a state with an open primary--until he didn't hit back after South Carolina. That's when I got the sneaking suspicion that he'd sell out anyone or anything for the Presidency. If you don't stand up for your family, then what are you ever going to stand up for? That he supported Bush after that episode was just the first indication to me that he had no bearings, and his every action since then has done nothing but back that opinion up.

I am very doubtful that a writer for Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker was a supporter of anything Republican.

And that's why I'm not going to engage with, you know, anything she actually wrote. Besides, Obama wants to talk to Iran, whereas McCain knows better than to sit down with bad men like that Zapatero guy from Mexistan who makes Zs in the sand with his sword.

More coherent trolls, please!

Then I discovered he want to negotiate with the holocaust supporter running Iran.

When in fact we should just nuke them and get it over with?

I've heard some seriously dimwitted rationales for not supporting a politician, but this is downright moronic.

Pure silliness. Yeah a bunch a democrats say kind things about a Republican when he thumbs his nose at his party's establishment. But as soon as he wins his party's nomination, he suddenly becomes the party's establishment: no more kind words for McCain!

Yeah, I don't know how McCain will survive the loss of support of all of these lefty journalists.

Why is Sarah Palin rebelling against God over Troopergate? Why won’t she read Romans 13 and submit to the governing authorities within the Alaska Legislature?

And, McAristotle, no, I don't believe you. Get in line behind someone older with more logical skills.

I might add this as well:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

McAristotle? More like McDonald.

BTW, I was an Obama supporter. I even went to Columbia. -McAristotle

You're a freakin' liar. Go sit and sulk with your pal Rush.

"Plus its an old trick to claim you were a supporter of someone when you dis him in an attempt to fake credibility. I am very doubtful that a writer for Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker was a supporter of anything Republican."

So...find something she actually said or wrote that supports your theory. Your evidence is just that she wrote for the Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker?

That's it?

Not to interrupt the lively conversation here, but I'm so furious at the crap that rightwing bloggers are putting out, I just had to share it with you all. It's from the Jawa Report, v3.0.

My suggestion to my favorite group of netizens on this site is to complete snark bomb this ridiculous garbage dump. They're idiots.

Check this nonsense:

Biden: Government Raping You Through Taxes is "Patriotic"
That is to be expected from somebody who has more or less produced absolutely nothing in his life for nobody, who has donated 1/3 of 1% of his 300K per year taxpayer-provided salary to charity, and has lived off of taxes generated by private businesses and middle-class workers for his entire career.

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
So let me get this straight - if I don't want to pay you idiots in government more of my money, I'm not patriotic? LOLOLOL

That's right, Hairplugs. Giving the morons who destroyed Fannie and Freddie - Democrats in Congress, many of whom paid off with political contributions from FannieFreddie CEOs and executives (like former FannieFreddie CEO Franklin Raines, a Barack Obama campaign adviser) in exchange for looser government scrutiny and resistance to GOP-proposed oversight - yes, giving these windbags more money to mismanage and waste is going to get America "out of the rut."

One interesting thing in this AP 'news' item was the language in this passage:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as it exaggerates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.
Oh? Has this non-partisan, non-biased reporter made that determination, then? Is it a fact and not an opinion that the ad is exaggerating Charlie Rangel's (D) proposed tax increase under an Obama Administration - that is, the largest tax increase ever, at any time, in human history? Interesting that the news service judged for the reader that the ad exaggerated something so that you don't have to watch it and decide for yourself. Aren't they polite?

Biden rolled on, thankfully.

"We want to take money
Indeed. One of the first things a tyrant or king does is to take away people's money.
and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
There's a problem, Joe. The bottom 50% of wage earners in the US pay almost none of the income taxes, while the top 10% pay at least 75% of all income taxes (BTW - which includes income, not wealth). THE MILLIONS OF LOWER INCOME WORKERS YOU REFER TO DON'T PAY TAXES TO BEGIN WITH, SO THEY AREN'T GETTING "A TAX CUT." You're just giving away money to people to whom it does not belong.

That's theft at the point of a gun, you plagiarizing, self-agrandizing, grandstanding ass-monkey. Just so you know who the real tyrants are, I wanted to make sure Biden reminded you.

By Good Lt. at September 18, 2008 08:08 AM | Comments (6) | Trackback l digg this

Steve - While I appreciate the impact of the Enough Club, its old news. The McCain camp has realized its gone to far, and is (for the short term) moving away from anything goes (I think the tax claim against Obama is incorrect but still fair game). His recent adds are within the pale for political adds in my opinion. I expect a certain amount of puffery in those ads, negative or positive. But, McCain has been very good at projecting his failures onto Obama, and Obama has to avoid the same thing happening here. You can sense the Obama is negative message beginning to reverberate from the McCain camp. Obama can't help but avoid some blowback from this. Factcheck went out of its way to go after Obama on some of his new adds last night on CNN (e.g., education bill) Another recent "survey" has concluded that Obama has produced more negative adds than McCain. Jack Tapper this morning went after Obama's Spanish ad re Limbaugh, as untrue and misleading. I am not concern trolling here. I was all for Obama fighting back, but he has to avoid anything that would allow the MSM to paint him in a similar light to McCain. He doesn't want to undo the excellent job the Campaign has done in turning the media against McCain.

Leave Dionne and Herbert out of this. They never wer idiots about Obama.

The RNC did to John McCain in 18 months what the Viet Cong couldn’t do in 5 years!

McCain is certainly losing friends fast, isn't he? Drew's condemnation comes just a couple of days after Richard Cohen's. Which came a couple of days after Stephen Chapman's. Which followed Michael Kinsley, Thomas Friedman, Sebastian Mallaby, Joe Klein, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Ruth Marcus, Mark Halperin, and Bob Herbert. Even David Brooks is getting there.

But Steve, they're all "intellectuals" and "elitists" who want to "attack" Sarah Palin because they're "sexist", unlike "common sense" and "decent" "real Americans" "in the heartland" who relate to Sarah Palin because "she's just like them".

Silly liberal bloggers.

I'll feel better when some of the rightsiders start calling McCain out.

In the meantime, I hope that Sen. McCain gets the medical treatment he needs. I just saw a new drug being advertised that treats alzheimer's...maybe that nurse who is always following him around should look into it. What? That's not a nurse? It's his wife? oh

McAristotle, why didn't you graduate from Columbia?

"Plus its an old trick to claim you were a supporter of someone when you dis him in an attempt to fake credibility...BTW, I was an Obama supporter."

Oh, McAristotle, you've done it again.

About three weeks ago, the McCain camp took a very public cheap shot at Andrea Mitchell, also known as Mrs. Allen Greenspan. The traditional media has steadily been souring against McCain since. It was interrupted by the Palin bounce and follow-up kitchen sink attacks (lies) against Obama.

Because the traditional media had begun to sour, and because the lies were patently false, the traditional media began to acknowledge the lies.

Then Obama did something that no recent presidential candidate has done. He used the "L" word(s): lie, liar, lying. No euphemisims. Just "lies".

The narrative in the traditional media jelled around that. It took the puiblic a few days to internalize the narrative. McCain's numbers have been dropping ever since.

Obama continues to use the "L" word in every speech.

Life is good.

I'll feel better when some of the rightsiders start calling McCain out.

In the meantime, I hope that Sen. McCain gets the medical treatment he needs. I just saw a new drug being advertised that treats alzheimer's...maybe that nurse who is always following him around should look into it. What? That's not a nurse? It's his wife? oh

Berube--tut, tut, it's not as if Zorro agrees with our beliefs re: democracy, fair play, and ponies. I mean, he's some proto-fascist swordsman who thinks its ok to stab people because they raise...taxes....hmmmm.

Not to interrupt the lively conversation here, but I'm so furious at the crap that rightwing bloggers are putting out

Now, now, since crap is all they have, what else can they do?

@Gridlock, an ex-publisher of National Review came out against McCain identifying him as out of step with what he considered to be conservativism and locating Obama within a notion of conservativisim as cautious and grounded in empiricism.

perhaps Rove can gin up some pseudo scandal or help Bush pull off an October surprise (Bush has been oddly out of sight), but for now the momentum is moving away from McCain. Broder still tries to make excuses for him and do his plague on both their houses schtick, but it's even less convincing than usual.

The problem with people like McAristotle is that the right wiing truly does believe that there is such a thing as liberal media bias. They do this because the only "balance" in their view is their way or the highway. So when the entire MSM spends 20 years lavishing praise on John McCain, to them, that's just politeness, just the "deference" the right expects and takes for granted.

The fact is that no less a conservative than Bill Kristol has acknowledged several times, for example in the New Yorker in 1995, on CNN in 2001, that there is no such thing as liberal media bias, it's just conservatives gaming the system. There were many times the number of stories on Gore "inventing" the internet, a word he never used to describe the legislation he moved in the 1980s, as there were on Bush avoiding Vietnam deployment or Cheney doing business with terrorist regimes. And we see it again and again -- liberals get bad press, and conservatives get a free ride, and yet conservatives still complain about liberal media bias.

You need to remember this any time you deal with the right. They are there, in your workplaces, in your neighborhoods, in your schools, in your communities, constantly pushing their agenda and their lies. It's no so much a conspiracy as it is a mentality. The basic issue is that the right-most third of this country pays no more than lip service to democracy. They will not be happy until they have the kind of control over government and deference from the public that the Chinese Communist Party has.

On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency (1994); and Citizen McCain (2002); and George W. Bush's Washington (2004). Her most recent book is Richard M. Nixon (2007).

Reckon she supports all of them?

First, the list is inaccurate. Her 2004 book is titled Fear and Loathing in George W. Bush's Washington. Second, no. As she said of McCain "I published a positive book about him". On the Edge wasn't "positive", and neither was Fear and Loathing.

The one she supported is the one she wrote the positive book about. Duh.

Plus its an old trick to claim you were a supporter of someone when you dis him in an attempt to fake credibility.

Yes, but when the evidence of your past support is in black and white in a book you published 6 years before you "dis" the person you "claim" to have supported in the past, its pretty hard to dismiss the claim as an invention. I mean, really, to believe your bizarre attack we have to believe that Drew planned for years to turn around and "dis" McCain this year, going so far as to publish a positive book about him over half a decade ago just to lend credibility to that criticism.

I am very doubtful that a writer for Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker was a supporter of anything Republican.

The facts are readily verifiable. If you can't be bothered to read the books at issue, you could at least visit their Amazon pages, and read, particularly, the Editorial Reviews section for each. That you choose to put your preconceived notions of the world ahead of external reality is, well, sadly typical of the Right.

BTW, I was an Obama supporter.

Evidence? Unlike Drew, who has, in fact, done things in the past which show her favor for McCain, we've got years of evidence in your posts here that you've been a right-wing troll since long before the event that you claim made you stop being an Obama supporter.

Not all claims are created equal. Some are supported by verifiable facts, some are contradicted by them. Drew's claim to have been a McCain supporter is in the former category, your claim to have been an Obama supporter is in the latter. Your attempt to portray them as equivalent is idiocy.

The problem with people like McAristotle is that the right wiing truly does believe that there is such a thing as liberal media bias.

Well, that shows a serious problem in their critical thinking skills right there.

No, the problem with people like McAristotle is that they reject any information that conflicts with their worldview. "Liberal bias" is just the excuse they use. Look at what this blockhead tried to claim on this thread -- that Drew, author of pro-Republican books, is somehow an agent provacateur.

The mere fact that she criticized McCain is sufficient to dismiss her, leaving McAristotle to grope for a plausible-sounding rationalization. As seen here, this rationalization takes his straight -- or should I say, straight back -- into fantasyland, but it insulates him from even having to consider the substance of her critique.

That's why we'll win, people. As SecularAnimist says, movement conservatism is a mental deficiency. It simply doesn't function in the real world.

The problem with people like McAristotle is that the right wiing truly does believe that there is such a thing as liberal media bias.

Well, that shows a serious problem in their critical thinking skills right there.

No, the problem with people like McAristotle is that they reject any information that conflicts with their worldview. "Liberal bias" is just the excuse they use. Look at what this blockhead tried to claim on this thread -- that Drew, author of pro-Republican books, is somehow an agent provacateur.

The mere fact that she criticized McCain is sufficient to dismiss her, leaving McAristotle to grope for a plausible-sounding rationalization. As seen here, this rationalization takes his straight -- or should I say, straight back -- into fantasyland, but it insulates him from even having to consider the substance of her critique.

That's why we'll win, people. As SecularAnimist says, movement conservatism is a mental deficiency. It simply doesn't function in the real world.

All I can say to you McCain critics is "Country First!, Country First!".

;^)

Seriously, though. What a sellout. But I think his transition is pretty telling about his party. Look what you have to become to be their candidate. His is a party with absolutely no platform to run on. It's all about fear and patriotism. Basically, their message is vote for us or die and get taxed out of house and home. Watching the Republican convention was like watching a comedy skit that was parodying Republicans. I knew it would be bad, but not THAT bad.

of course it might help if McAriFleischer were literate enough to ever read Atlantic Monthly as opposed to seeing it on a list and jumping to conclusions. Atlantic is hardly a leftie mag. It presently has more right-of-center bloggers and columnists than left-of-center. But then again, Rethugs are never ones to let a few facts get in the way of a good smear, right?

I give Elizabeth Drew a big "Boo Hoo" for her loss, and I agree with Atrios on this one:

Hack

The sad thing is that few of these people will acknowledge that they simply got played, and instead want to cast McCain as a character in a play about a man's tragic downfall. He was always an unprincipled hack, but for a very long time his political fortunes were the result of his understanding of and willingness to cater to the desires of elite Villagers. Now he has a different target.

Steve, I do think you are missing some names from the Enough Club roster.

I think it would be pretty fair to include David Ignatius at this point as well.

Kinsley, Herbert, Marcus Brooks.....

I wonder how Holy Joe is feeling these days.

Are you guys' irony meters broken? McAristotle's "I was an Obama supporter..." line was quite clearly supposed to be sarcasm.

Not that that excuses him for his other sins. Does no one else but cmdicely remember this guy from the old days? Malaysian or Singaporean, pretended to be a voting U.S. citizen or resident until we called him on it, obsessed with abortion, pseudo free marketeer? He went by another handle before McAristotle...Gregory, cm, what the hell was it? I haven't had enough sleep and my synapses aren't firing.

This new development of Drew's is interesting. I have on my shelf her book about the events of 1973-74 and what it was like to be a reporter in Washington during that period. Have always been struck by her descriptions of conversations with Congressional Republicans about Watergate as it unfolded. The majority of them felt genuine horror and revulsion for Nixon's actions and were clear on what their duty was in response. Contrast that with today's lockstep Republican caucus and its willingness to overlook literally any evil in the name of power; it makes one feel like weeping in frustration.

Since McCain was a chief player in making the last eight years possible, I wish Drew had woken up and smelled the coffee quite a bit sooner. But I'm glad to hear she has now.

I'm waiting for one more Maverick fan to see the light:
http://policomic.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/jon-stewart-msms-last-mccain-lover/

He went by another handle before McAristotle...Gregory, cm, what the hell was it?

"Researcher." Sadly, then, as now, his "research" consisted mainly of listening to Rush.

Even the Rich Lowry thought Drew went overboard in her McCainiacal leanings.

Whatever else you think of John McCain, he is not an uninteresting political figure -- except, that is, in the hands of Elizabeth Drew in this short hagiography. Drew, of course, is a veteran and much-honored political journalist, but she has produced a book that reads like a long, rejected New Yorker article. She spent months in and out of McCain's office during the 2001 fight over campaign-finance reform and chronicles here the utterly forgettable legislative minutiae, relieved only by periodic gushing pronouncements about McCain's virtue, courage, and kindness to small children and puppies.Whatever else you think of John McCain, he is not an uninteresting political figure -- except, that is, in the hands of Elizabeth Drew in this short hagiography. Drew, of course, is a veteran and much-honored political journalist, but she has produced a book that reads like a long, rejected New Yorker article. She spent months in and out of McCain's office during the 2001 fight over campaign-finance reform and chronicles here the utterly forgettable legislative minutiae, relieved only by periodic gushing pronouncements about McCain's virtue, courage, and kindness to small children and puppies.

Pretty hard to argue she wasn't a supporter.

I dunno -- as McAristotle just demonstrated to what I hope will be his everlasting embarrassment, it's easy to do so if you're an ignoramus.

It's pretty hard to argue convincingly, but then McA has always had that particular problem.

Researcher! That's it--thank you, G.

policomic: I'm waiting for one more Maverick fan to see the light

Some months ago Stewart had McCain on the show, and during the exchange Stewart said something like "for the first time in a long time both parties have good candidates" and suggested either would be acceptable as the next president.

I couldn't beleieve it. Anyone like Stewart who's paying attention knows that McCain sold out to the Bushies lock, stock, and barrel four years ago and that even in his mavericky days he was still a staunch conservative. WTF?

So you're right.

some punk: There's a problem, Joe. The bottom 50% of wage earners in the US pay almost none of the income taxes, while the top 10% pay at least 75% of all income taxes (BTW - which includes income, not wealth). THE MILLIONS OF LOWER INCOME WORKERS YOU REFER TO DON'T PAY TAXES TO BEGIN WITH, SO THEY AREN'T GETTING "A TAX CUT."

Payroll taxes. I can always tell a right-wing asshole working off a script because when he deploys this cookie-cutter argument he's always real fastidious not to talk about just "taxes" but "income taxes," so he can gloss over the fact that a guy who earns $15,000 a year pays payroll taxes at a four times higher percentage rate than a guy who earns $1,000,000 a year. Of course when the punk went off script and into ALL CAPS MODE, he forgot and yelled "DON'T PAY TAXES TO BEGIN WITH," which is a typical ignorant punk lie.

McAristotle, because he/she is a deeper thinker than most, ignores the recommendation to negotiate with Iran, which was a point of consensus of the former Secretaries of State, Kissinger, Albright, Powell and Christopher, during their symposium this week at the Geo. Washington University in DC.

I'll give Drew one credit: she's one of the few "Enough Club" members to even raise the possibility that McCain was never the mavericky maverick they portrayed in their coverage of him.

Long ago, I figured the media would support John McCain until he got the Republican nomination, then portray him as a kindly old man or a grumpy old man, so that the Democratic nominee could win. He was then expected to go gently into obscurity, so that "progressive" policies of earnings redistribution and social engineering could become law - as if they really were mandated by the people of the United States, and not merely the schemes of its chattering classes.

Now McCain has executed campaign maneuvers with the stealth and dexterity of a fighter pilot, and the media who would orchestrate an election are clearly in his sights. It is interesting to observe the vehemence of their reactions. I hope he defeats his opponents soundly - it would be good for the country.

MKS

You got some 'splaining to do Lucy...what on earth are you talking about with "policies of earnings redistribution" and "social engineering"??

Have you been staying up late at night reading your Ayn Rand again?

(you are aware that there in fact such a thing as Socialism, but that no politician in the United States of America comes anywhere close to sniffing distance of it. Hell, they aren't even in the same ballpark as Social Democracy. And Obama most certainly isn't in the same zip code as it. He's the very definition of a centrist politician - didn't you listen to his Convention speech? Centrist City my friend, Centrist City)

No get back to The Fountainhead...its finish is a real cracker!!

LEAVE JOHN MCCAIN ALONE!

My answer to all the members of the "Enough club"? Boo flipping hoo.

You utter dolts are the same people who enabled Bush and helped him get us into the mess we are now in. You've also enabled all the lies and smears that have been told about Obama over the past two years. And now that you're finally forced to admit what kind of dishonorable slime McCain is, most of you still cling to the delusion that he isn't *really* like that. That he's an honorable man being forced, somehow, to run a dishonorable campaign.

Feh. McCain's "honor" was exposed for what it is twenty years ago by the Keating 5 scandal. His performance in the 2000 election showed that he has always been ready to jettison his "straight talk" when times got tough. And now that he's in a tough election against that uppity negro (right-wingers *know* they want to call him that; in fact, many of them already have), McCain's true colors have been revealed once and for all. And what's worse, now that you media hack-bots are finally observing what's been right before your eyes for twenty years now, McCain and Palin are laughing in your face. They're shamelessly repeating the same lies that you are finally calling then on, no doubt on the assumption that they can safely ignore you and it won't hurt them.

And you know what, you "Enough Club" whiners? They may very well be right. Because you've been a pack of biased, lie-repeating scumbags for so long that most of America doesn't listen to you anymore. And you're still letting yourselves be taken advantage of by the McCain campaign. You're still broadcasting their lies. You're still devoting whole columns and hour-long tv shows to talking about them and dissecting them. And you're still avoiding actually calling McCain and Palin *liars*.

All your oh-so-smug righteous indignation isn't going to change anything. It is time to stop enabling these right-wing extremist douche bags and start doing your jobs. For a change.

I don't think you could consider E.J. Dionne, Jr., Ruth Marcus, and Bob Herbert to be "friends" of McCain. Not this year, anyway.

'principled, honorable man of conscience'? When has he ever, been? Everybody who felt for his bs got conned by a cunning sociopath. Face it, if you fell for it, you are Pinocchio. Maybe one day you will become a real boy or a real girl. Your head is made of wood.

Its not clear why those wimpy libs ever thought McCain was a man of conscience. Drew herself quotes him as saying in 2002 in his own memoir:

“I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.�

Does that sound like a man of great principle? And don't forget that he admittedly sold his alleged "principles" down the river over the confederate flag issue then as well.

The great principled John McCain, like Colin Powell, is 100% a media creation. It's just another exmaple of liberals falling all over themselves to prove that they are reasonable and to kiss conservative ass.

not "serious"...not "reflective"...not "interested in domestic issues" ????

How about NOT CONNECTED TO REALITY?

McCain is losing his marbles. It's obvious.

I'll feel better when some of the rightsiders start calling McCain out.

In the meantime, I hope that Sen. McCain gets the medical treatment he needs. I just saw a new drug being advertised that treats alzheimer's...maybe that nurse who is always following him around should look into it. What? That's not a nurse? It's his wife? oh

I always find it amusing that the rightwingers who don't want to negotiate with a "holocaust denier" have no trouble with a president who frequently holds hands with Saudi princes and kings. Saudi arabia is the most anti-jewish state in the world - its educational system is pervaded, from the first grade up, with anti-jewish textbooks, its state owned tv station often features rousing series like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in seven parts, etc. So why aren't they saying, Bush must be an anti-semite? Because they could really care less. It is concern trolling of the finest vintage. Just as they are completely road rage mad to attack nations, as long as they aren't, like, oil rich nations with which our oil companies are cosy (Saudi Arabia, proud sponsor of the Sunni insurgency that took out more than 3,000 U.S. troops) or Pakistan, our close relationship with which is Reagan's fine legacy - and wasn't it nice of those Pakistanis to find a place for the son of a Saudi billionaire, Mr. Bin Laden, to find a home?

THERE HAS BEEN NO TRANSITION. MCCAIN HAS MADE NO TRANSITION. HE WAS ALWAYS AN UNPRINCIPLED SELF-SERVING LYING JERK!!!!!

And there has been no "morphing," too. Unless you're talking about how McCain has always had as his secret identity Doctor Morphosis, international supervillain.

"so that "progressive" policies of earnings redistribution and social engineering could become law "

You must prefer the right-wing policies of earnings redistribution and social engineering.

Yep, Republicans are the real socialists.