That kind of thing happens once every 25 years.

I love when people say “well he made special programs that made all that happen”.

Yeah, he went back in time and taught Steve Jobs and Bill Gates how to hack. Got it.

It was a lucky moment in time to be president, and he still sorta screwed it up.

Say what you want about Bush but he’s never pretended to like liberals or give a crap about what they think, and that’s admirable. Democrats like clinton or obama will tell you anything to be elected. It’s about power, of course.

One key problem for Democrats, from my view, is that they’ve promised the same shit for almost 50 years and never deliver on it, even when they’ve had full government control. There’s always an excuse, a boogeyman, a neo-con in the way. But they will help you, just keep waiting around…

As long as people continue to think that the government will help them in absence of any evidence, Democrats will still have something to sell and people who think of government as mommy and daddy will have something to buy.

Take a moment and think about the times the government has helped you Vs. the times its presence has harmed you or annoyed you and you’ll probably start to sour on any social politician, especially Democrats. It’s the carrot and the stick.

I live in one of the most liberal regions in the US and getting a wisdom tooth pulled in a publicly funded hospital when I was uninsured was so unnecessarily difficult and degrading that I don’t believe that the decades of kind and gentle democratic rule have helped me too much.

If there is a key example of democratic rule, it’s California. With all the money california has our state system is a total clusterfuck, and you cant blame bush or neocons for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-_cLhDTCk

http://www.viralthis.com/90/john-mccain-contradicts-himself.html

“Just six short months ago, McCain told the Boston Globe that he, unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office, felt compelled to follow the law when protecting U.S. national security. Asked specifically if the president has the authority to sidestep the law and conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant, McCain said, “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

The Globe, seeking clarification, asked whether federal statutes trumped a president’s war-time authority. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” McCain said.

As has become typical with McCain, the Republican presidential candidate no longer believes what he used to believe.

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

McCain was, in other words, against presidential authority superseding the law before he was for it.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement by Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”

In addition to the fairly obvious flip-flop (what else is new), there are a couple of interesting angles to consider here.

First, the reference to Article II is pretty transparent — like Bush’s lawyers, the McCain campaign is arguing that the president’s inherent authority as Commander in Chief gives him the right to do literally anything in the interests of protecting national security. FISA gives the president certain powers, but according to this argument, the president need not feel bound to follow the law because he’s, you know, the president.

Second, there’s a political context to consider. Mark Kleiman argued:

McCain’s new pro-wiretap position was issued in response to a complaint by a right-wing blogger that his prior new position (not to be confused with his original position) wasn’t bold enough. “Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?” huffed Andy McCarthy of National Review Online. (Translation: You’re not suggesting that the President has to obey the law, are you?”) And McCain folded like a cheap card table.

Now that the wingnuts know that they can mau-mau McCain every time he deviates toward sanity, they’re going to keep pulling his chain. If he keeps responding this way, it’s going to be hard for even his acolytes in the media to keep calling him either principled or moderate.

Mark’s more optimistic about the treatment McCain will receive from a sycophantic media, but it’s a good point nevertheless.

And third, it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider the fact that this, once again, brings McCain precisely in line with Bush’s worldview and disdain for the rule of law. At the exact moment we might expect McCain to distance himself from Bush’s radicalism, McCain is doing the exact opposite, giving Bush’s passive contempt for the law a big bear hug.

There were probably some principled conservatives who saw McCain’s sensible remarks about the rule of law to the Boston Globe six months ago as encouraging. But he no longer cares about appearing sensible or concerned with legal norms, McCain has right-wing activists to motivate.

What an embarrassment”

-thecarpetbaggerreport.com

And I didn’t have any “summations” about you. I stated 3 simple facts that you can’t deny. Am/was I judging you? Like I said, no. But based on the kind of person “gethurt.com” is, I’m sure he is.

Suck it.

You call Obama scary and the concept of his presidency terrible, but preach of McCains character and integrity as if he weren’t known very well to have a tyrannic temper (not to mention cheating on and abandoning his first wife). A temper which he has lost on several documented occasions ON THE SENATE FLOOR. I’d be happy to provide a number of examples if you like.

We’re not talking about a guy who calls his wife a cunt in private and presents a calm, collected professional demeanor in public. He’s very well known for blowing his lid. That speaks a hell of a lot louder to me than POW heroics four decades ago.

As I said in my piece, McCain’s POW story is an admirable tale of survival and selflessness, and he deserves the highest medals and honors they can pin on him. But how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the leadership of the world’s most powerful military? Or the leadership of this nation, for that matter? It doesn’t. The association is entirely emotion-based.
That’s an old, useful trick and common thread among Republicans that the left just doesn’t have, and it’s cost them countless elections: the ability to set their differences aside and jump on a collective emotional tide-shifter bandwagon. To create enough hype to make words like “facts” and “truth” sound unpleasant and unnecessary.

But it’s interesting that the rhetoric of my article has thus far been the only attack point. People rushing to defend McCain’s hero status, something I never really questioned. There’s been no attempt to justify McCain’s comments about still voting us into Iraq if he’d have known how it would unfold, despite the staggering evidence that the war was a mistake and we don’t belong there. Or his astonishing number of about-face maneuvers on important issues. Or, again, how his Vietnam hostage heroism qualifies him to run my country. Or the fact that he’s a man of action before words, pushing a war agenda when this nation is aching for peace.

At least for the price of smug condescension I got half a response about Clark’s VP eligibility in a comment from Skwerl.

A few months ago, I was even thinking that perhaps a president Obama wouldn’t be a terrible thing until he began to show his colors. I now find him pretty scary. Obama supporters have GOT to be disillusioned!

There IS such a thing as a moderate republican. No, a vote for McCain is not for any of the reasons you mentioned, at least in my book. IT is because of his character, his experience and integrity. One may not agree on everything with him, but he IS moderate, and what you see is what you get. No guessing games. The world stage has gotten too dicey to go with inexperience and extremism on the left- or on the right!

So you don’t think being tortured as a prisoner of war and a refusal to go home when he was given the chance because of his dad being a congressman is heroic JFirecloud?

YEah, I know, you are all worried about his age. Well, he’d be a one term president. Let’s see who these guys chose as running mates.