ORLANDO -- Echoing the angry rhetoric from the party's conservative base, Florida's top Republicans on Saturday warned that Barack Obama's "Marxist" plans would "kill" the economy. [....]
Republicans occasionally expose the hate that, when things are going their way, they keep hidden behind the sheets:
Update, Oct.18:
Paul Senft, a national committee member from Polk County, said, "There are those who come to this country to get away from socialism," he said before referring to Obama's tax and health care plans. "It's Marxist. It's communist. But let's just call it socialism."
-
Fla. GOP Assails Obama's Proposals
October 17, 2008
When the going gets tough . . .
Today's knee-slapper: McCain's new 'running against Bush' line
At Wednesday night's debate, John McCain reminded Barack Obama that he is not George Bush.
Since then, the senator's new line of sarcasm, met with laughter and applause at his campaign rallies, has been, "If Barack Obama wanted to run against George Bush, he should have done that four years ago."
A more accurate observation is,
"If John McCain wanted to run against George Bush, he should have done that four years ago."
Not only has McCain supported Bush-Cheney and their most disastrous policies for eight long years -- I seem to recall a whole lotta hugging and kissing going on four years ago.
You can run, John, but you can't hide from your past.
But you're a great standup comedian.
October 07, 2008
Sarah Sensation, the runaway VP candidate
Not since the runaway bride has the US media focused so much attention on such little substance.
Media diversions: Jennifer Wilbanks and Sarah Palin
Members of the media elite (take the swooning news anchors, for example) have dusted off their vintage editions of Roget's Thesaurus for new adjectives to describe their latest product, the new, improved, bubble-wrapped hockey-mom action figure, Sarah Palin:
Tom Brokaw, NBC: “A very auspicious debut.”
Jeff Greenfield, CBS: “Perfect populist pitch.”
Wolf Blitzer, CNN: “It wasn’t just a home run, it may have been a grand slam.”
Chris Wallace (Fox), Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer (CNN), on cue: “A Star is Born.”
Those superlatives, gushed by aging men in their first reactions to Sarah's "scintillating" teleprompter reading at the Republican National Convention, foreshadowed the media love affair with the high-heeled pit bull.
Reality on the nation's airwaves is in short supply. Hold onto your hats -- or whatever else sparks your imagination. Picture Zena the Warrior Princess at the Daytona 500, Britney at the MTV Video Music Awards, Jennifer Wilbanks on a Greyhound bus to nowhere.
Sarah Barracuda is bigger. She has become the steam-regulating conductor of a political runaway train. Whoo hoo!
We can't avert our eyes because the male-dominated press, the shallow but well-paid hucksters for their corporate bosses, are blinding us with a hailstorm of atmospherics. We are, after all, watching the all too predictable behavior of the same hyperventilating watchdogs of democracy that gave us the "uniter" president, the "WMD" war, the "straight talk express" and, yes, the "runaway bride."
And, if it's within their power to focus the voters' attention away from the issues that actually matter -- things like the recurring national crises that keep us awake at night -- onto the McCain-Palin misdirection of the day, we may wake up November 5 to discover that nothing has changed.
Our only hope is that, for a change, voters see through the media diversions, recognize the straight talk express with a runaway conductor as another train wreck waiting to happen, and put the country first.
September 27, 2008
Sorry John, you blew it
What was he thinking? John McCain chose as his running mate a "pit bull with lipstick" over a young lady from South Carolina who could have added more intellectual depth and understanding of world affairs to his ticket.
Big mistake, John.
That's what we've come to expect, though, from the "military expert" who still doesn't know the difference between tactics and strategies, doesn't know Sunni from Shiia, ignored the fact that a so-called safe stroll through a Baghdad market depended on flak jackets and Blackhawks, doesn't know that Spain is a European ally, and -- despite numerous international joyrides with his loyal vassals Lieberman and Graham -- probably doesn't know which country he's in much of the time.
Maybe he's still working on the number of houses he owns.
See also . . .
September 20, 2008
Deregulation: McCain's solution to everything
But that was then, this is now
Don't worry, be happy. It's morning in America all over again. The fundamentals of our economy are strong.
Like his hug-buddy W., John McCain supports the privatization of Social Security. Take that, Wall Street.
Like the man he once supported for president -- ex-Senator, current pal, bank lobbyist and economic adviser America-has-become-a-nation-of-whiners Phil Gramm -- McCain struts and crows and flaps his wings about his deregulation Credo.
Until, that is, it all becomes politically inconvenient when his fundamental economic philosophy -- i.e., the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington -- leads to today's financial meltdown.
But, get this: McCain proposes to do to health care what he and his buddies have done to the financial system.
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.Cockadoodledoo.
- John McCain, Better Care at lower cost for every American
So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago -- and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
- Paul Krugman, McCain on banking and health
September 19, 2008
Checking off the feminists' to-do list
"Sarah Palin may yet be the fulfillment of an old feminist prophecy that Texan Sissy Farenthold once described with her tongue firmly planted in her cheek.
"We will have achieved equality the day mediocre women take their place beside mediocre men.
"Check that one off the to-do list."
September 18, 2008
September 05, 2008
Today's knee-slapper: The Republican 'mavericks'
Mavericks?maverick: "an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party" - Merriam-Webster
Q: Does that definition apply to John McCain and Sarah Palin -- or are they morphing themselves into the "un-Republican ticket" to mislead voters?
A: "And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." - John McCain
Q: How can you can tell when a politician -- one who finally convinced his party's base that he was the presidential candidate most committed to his party's agenda and to continuing the Bush-Cheney legacy -- is lying when he calls himself a "maverick"?
A: He blinks, he winks, and finally he squeezes out a mischievous grin that says, "You ain't seen nothing yet, my friends. There's plenty more where that one came from." Wink.
Q: How can you tell when a "pit bull with lipstick" is just a sideshow poodle with an attitude?
A: She depends on the same old Bush-Rove operatives and Washington lobbyists to concoct a special batch of "maverick" magenta for her national debut.
August 31, 2008
McCain flunks Katrina test
Speaking in New Orleans about Hurricane Katrina today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to contrast himself with President Bush’s delayed response to Katrina, saying, "I would’ve landed my airplane at the nearest Air Force base and come over personally."
But as Newsweek notes, on Aug. 29, 2005, when Katrina had just hit New Orleans, McCain was posing with President Bush for his 69th birthday:
It was Aug. 29, McCain’s 69th birthday, and on the tarmac, Bush presented his old political rival with a cake. The two posed, holding the cake up for cameras, and within seconds, went their separate ways. The cake, melting in the 110-degree Arizona heat, was left behind, uneaten.
“Yet on the issue of New Orleans, it’s still unclear how different McCain and Bush actually are,” Newsweek writes, noting that McCain has visited the Ninth Ward only twice since the storm.
“The senator won’t present his own plans for recovery, at least not today.” - Flashback: As Katrina hit, McCain celebrated 69th birthday with Bush
More . . . .
- Katrina, George Bush, John McCain and cake
- McCain and Katrina ravaged New Orleans: Facts vs spin
- John McCain - Going Down (YouTube)
March 11, 2008
The McCain-Clinton Party Fusion Ticket
Hillary Clinton, March 3, 2008
"I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy." - Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2008
John McCain, on keeping American troops in Iraq for 50 years, as George Bush has suggested: "Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me." - John McCain, January 3, 2008
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote [authorizing the use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq, Oct. 11, 2002] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." - Hillary Clinton, February 17, 2007
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda." - Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
February 12, 2008
"Straight talk" McCain will say anything to win
John McCain faulted the Bush Administration in August of 2006 for not being honest with the American people in their rhetoric leading up to the War in Iraq, but who else led the American people to think that the occupation of Iraq would "be some kind of day at the beach?"
Listen to McCain in his own words . . .
February 07, 2008
January 31, 2008
John McCain shadowboxes Captain Peacock
Watching John McCain in last night's Republican debate, I saw a man who appears to have entered the early stages of dementia. Regardless of the question posed, Sen. McCain's rambling and frequently incoherent responses demonstrated an inability to focus on any matter beyond his self-aggrandizing pretensions of being smarter, wiser, and more patriotic than his opponents.
One side of McCain's brain seems stuck in the 1960's and some timeworn dream of personal glory, the other in 2000 and the wrongs inflicted on him by George W. Bush. He adds little to the national discussion on America’s future other than revelations of his own internal dialogue, which appears to mix past honor with present confusion, leaving little room for future solutions.
To Captain McCain, the world is, and always will be, a battlefield. He will "never surrender, they will" - and his definition of "they" is broad enough to land a fleet of fighter jets. In his mind only, he, of all the presidential candidates, knows how to lead people into battle. He must seethe at the very thought of Bush the avoider (Viet Nam) becoming Bush the decider (Iraq), then prancing in his bomber's drag across the deck of an aircraft carrier, an unearned display that should have been McCain's own "Mission Accomplished" shuffle. Instead, the also-ran of 2000 is left to grovel before his political nemesis, trying with all his might to convince the Republican Party that a real warrior deserves to become the country's commander in chief.
Despite his claims of brilliance on matters of foreign policy and national security - claims based on the personal experiences of his admirable military career, his imprisonment in Viet Nam, and his longevity in Washington - McCain’s belligerency would lead to unforeseen, unnecessary and counterproductive wars based on the same faulty logic that drove the country into Iraq and keeps us there. Two generations ago, the worldview to which he still clings led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths in Viet Nam - even after the end result was predictable. Had his discredited philosophy prevailed indefinitely - say, "for 100 years" - he probably would have died in a Viet Cong prison. Experience may count, but experience grounded in a half century of mistakes and irrational thinking does not make a person ready to lead a free people: it makes for a life of mistakes and irrational thinking.
Last night McCain sat within arm's reach of Mitt Romney and lied through his teeth about comments never made by Romney - all the while claiming to be a man of principle and "straight talk." This man is Richard Nixon without the peace sign, Dick Cheney without the wit, Zell Miller without the spitballs. My friends, John McCain is a man who should never be allowed to command the world's greatest military power, his ancient heart thumping to the drumbeat of war, one hand fondling the nuclear trigger and the other caressing Joe Lieberman's wish list of future conquests.
As much as I oppose the policy proposals of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, I'll take their extremism over McCain's mania. The fact that so many Republican voters are willing to gamble the nation’s future on this unstable cold warrior is a frightening development in American politics.
Others watched the debate and saw a man to lead the free world: I saw a man who belongs in a Republican retirement center, fading into a Captain Peacock character - an old know-it-all strutting around the hot tub in his skivvies, living on cocktail olives and Viagara, reciting past glories to anyone within earshot - and always winning the battles still waging in his own skull.
Captain Peacock: Mrs. Slocombe, you will return to your post. When I turn around, you will raise your arm. I will ask, "What is it, Mrs. Slocombe?" You will ask me, "Are you free?" If I nod, you may then approach me.
"Doctors said sexually transmitted diseases among senior citizens are running rampant at a popular Central Florida retirement community, according to a Local 6 news report. A gynecologist at The Villages community [a Republican bastion] near Orlando, Fla., said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did in the city of Miami." - The Villages idiot: Bush 'the greatest president we've ever had'
January 27, 2008
Update to presidential predictions: Republicans
On February 18, 2007, I ranked Republicans’ chances for their party’s nomination: 1- Romney, 2- Jeb Bush, 3- Giuliani, 4- Hagel, 5- McCain, 6- Huckabee.
In the intervening months, Mayor "9-11" has practically disappeared without a trace. Giuliani’s mistake was coming to Florida – and staying. The more time he spent here, the less Florida liked him, just as many of us had expected when the “experts” were anointing “the country’s mayor” as the most worthy opponent to face Hillary in the fall. (National opinion polls at the time had him at 45-50% and higher. So much for name recognition polls.)
Sen. Hagel, to his credit, recognized that the Republican Party faithful would never forgive him for being right on the Iraq war, and he remains right on both counts. Whether he will join a Bloomberg Bull Moose Party remains an open question.
Sen. Thompson, the lobbyist/actor I ignored with good reason, flared briefly then dropped from sight after harrumphing himself through the early primaries and caucuses. I had expected him to last about three weeks from the time he announced his candidacy - but I could have been wrong: his decline probably started in less time. Still, I don't count him out as someone's attack dog in the fall campaign.
As we approach the Florida primaries this Tuesday, three men remain in the game. Little has changed since I made this comment about Gov. Huckabee last February: “As attractive as he could be to the average voter, I don't see Republican power brokers throwing their weight behind him. He's an outsider, from Arkansas, of all places.” His support among certain religious groups caught some observers by surprise, but Rev. Huckabee’s intentions of rewriting the Constitution to conform to his personal interpretations of selected Bible verses, along with his lack of funds, seem to have taken him out of contention for the top position.
My greatest prediction error was ranking Sen. McCain so low. Obviously the field of candidates appeared so dreadful, even to Republicans, that Lazarus was called up from the political graveyard. If they should settle on "Bomb, bomb Iran" McCain to head the ticket, perhaps the country will be given a clear choice of whether or not they agree that hundred-year wars, plural, are sustainable. One wonders how long the manipulated fears that took us into a disastrous mess can be used to keep us there.
Until proven wrong, which could happen two days from now, I continue to rank Romney first among Republicans. Everyone knew a year ago that he would adopt a highly conservative economic and social agenda for his campaign. Running slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, however, made him so patently artificial that many within his party do not trust him to remain true to his expressed agenda. I do. Mitt boy is the rich showoff who will do anything to prove his toughness to the bullies demanding a ride in Daddy’s Jag. To succeed, he becomes a bigger bully to everyone else. Being the hardnosed businessman that he is, we should not be surprised that he would study the Republican void and, like a high pressure salesman in a sharkskin suit, remake himself in the image of Jeb Bush. Mitt becomes Jeb, and why not? Jeb represents all that’s wrong with the Republican Party, so the marketing strategy could yield high returns. After all, someone has to fill the Republican leadership vacuum and Jeb can’t run – or can he? Would you bet against his becoming the Republican nominee if he could appear magically in the race tomorrow?
February 18, 2007
Presidents' Day presidential predictions: Republicans
Here it is mid-February 2007, Presidents' Day, and the world "awaits" my picks to win the presidential super bowl - the biggest game in politics, still a year away. Predicting each political party's eventual nominee almost a year before the first vote is cast makes about as much sense as forecasting the 2008 Super Bowl. But the odds do not scare a skilled prognosticator such as myself. ha.
So, here goes my Pat Robertson-style prophecy, listing the ego trippers' names in order of their chances of winning the party nomination. (OK, God speaks to Pat more than me; I'm not even Republican.) Tomorrow I'll assess the Democrats' chances, but today the focus is on Republicans. As always, exercise caution. Results may vary.
Republicans Ranked by Nomination Probability
1. Mitt Romney
2. Jeb Bush
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Chuck Hagel
5. John McCain
6. Mike Huckabee
7. Newt Gingrich
8. Sam Brownback
Others: Hunter, Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Pataki, Bloomberg, et al
John McCain is losing whatever credibility he ever had, even with Republicans. Proposing a massive escalation of the debacle in Iraq (with troops, materiel and support that were not available) will be recognized as cynical positioning to deflect blame onto others for losing the war. Kissing W.'s ring (and more) for eight years and plunging headfirst into Jerry Falwell's baptismal pool will be seen by voters for what they are worth: nothing.
Rudi Giuliani will never be supported by the religious wrong unless he can convince them he has done a 180 on the social issues. So long as Falwell, Dobson and the other theocracy-minded puritans have any other acceptable choice with a chance of winning the general election, they will not settle for an empty suit in high heels. Staying alive and walking the streets of New York City after 9/11, instead of crawling into a hole and whimpering, does not in their view cancel Rudy's unpardonable sin of spending his nights in the sanctuary of the unholy (the home of gay men).
When the two leading candidates begin falling in the polls, who will move up? Mitt Romney, perhaps. Despite his changed positions on social issues (not changing but changed, as of his latest announcement), Romney has repented his evil ways (and he really, really loves his one wife), making himself acceptable to the hardliners if he can sell the penitence act, and I think he can. Once he gathers up the hoes and the pitchforks, and goes marching off to slay the evil dragons of liberalism, his mistakes of the past will be forgiven. Romney's Mormon religion could prove to be a plus, not a minus, among evangelical voters, and he's already following in Ronald Reagan's footsteps: "This is the way, walk ye in it." (Isaiah 30:21) All Mitt is missing now is Ronnie's hair stylist and the rusty halo.
Chuck Hagel could face more problems than Romney simply because he split with his party on Iraq. The wingnuts will find that hard to forgive, and his presence on the ticket would be a constant reminder of how deadly wrong all the others were. Still, Republicans will do most anything to win, and Hagel is not only a mid-West conservative who won 83% of his state's vote in his 2002 reelection, but he is a (sometimes) straight-shooting Vietnam war hero - without the McCain baggage. In what could become a strange turn, a vote for Hagel could give rank-and-file Republican voters some feeling of redemption for following Bush off the cliff: "I voted for Chuck after I voted for W."
Should neither McCain, Giuliani, Romney nor Hagel take a formidable lead by the end of this year, however, party bigshots may be scrambling for a compromise candidate. Mike Huckabee is well-positioned, but so far, not well known. As attractive as he could be to the average voter, I don't see Republican power brokers throwing their weight behind him. He's an outsider, from Arkansas, of all places. Right now, "Huckaberry" and Haley look more like VP options - and either man would take the deal in a heartbeat. (Forgive the unintended use of weight, heartbeat and VP all in the same sentence.)
Who, then, if no one makes the big break toward the end zone, would the party turn to? Gingrich? I doubt it. Newt may be the GOP "ideas man," but his jabbering won't play well in the heat of battle (one reason he's holding off for now), and I don't think the party would risk taking him and his history into the general election. Brownback and Hunter, like Bauer and Keyes in 2000, will scare the bejesus out of more moderate voters, and it's doubtful any of the lesser candidates (other than Bloomberg or Fred Thompson, if they were to enter the race) will have the financial backing to challenge the big boys.
That leaves one player of some stature on the sidelines. And, yes, he's a Bush. If the others throw themselves into a mid-field brawl, Jeb Bush could become the one candidate that all the party factions could rally around. Traditional wisdom may be that George has destroyed Jeb's chances, at least for 2008. But Jeb is not George, and if the others flounder in the big game, Jeb could be the hero coming off the bench to the cheers of the GOP faithful. I'm not ready to move him up to first place yet, but we shouldn't forget, "he's the smart one."
These predictions may be far-fetched - and a Hollywoodie ex-senator could change the political Nielsons overnight - but keep in mind that Republicans are not imaginative. Right or wrong, orders come from above. Once the team owners anoint the new quarterback, the team players and fans will assume their assigned positions and never question the call. To Republicans, winning ain't everything; it's the only thing.
December 16, 2006
Will the war based on lies never end?
Today, as every day, the news is not encouraging . . .
Do Blair and Bush deserve anyone's trust?
The British Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
An attack on Blair's justification by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the United Nations, has been under wraps because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
Ross, 40, makes it clear Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests".
He also reveals British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.
Are the Geneva Conventions "quaint"?
The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.
Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."
And then set free.
Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.
- Majority of Gitmo Detainees Freed in Other Countries
- Memorandum on the Geneva Conventions
- Outsourcing torture
Will Bush gamble more lives on false hopes?
Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.
Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said during a visit to Baghdad this week that American military commanders were discussing the possibility of adding as many as 10 more combat brigades - a maximum of about 35,000 troops - to establish some of control while Iraq's divided political leaders seek solutions to the mounting violence.
Can McCain win by playing the blame game?
"Straight talking" John McCain's call for thousands more troops in Iraq is just a pathetic ploy to seem like a patriot for the presidential elections.
McCain wants this stupid, pointless, sucker's war to drag on, maybe even get worse. He needs something to rescue us from. He can't win without it. And hey, what's a few thousand more corpses if it means he gets to be president?
Are "establishment" warnings too little too late?
Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.
Will dissenting soldiers be labeled "cut'n run" losers?
For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq.
February 07, 2006
Dear John: Get help
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) received a dressing down Monday from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who accused the freshman senator of using the ethics reform issue for "self-interested partisan posturing."
In a sarcastic letter, McCain accused Obama, the Senate Democrats' new lead spokesman on ethics, of not wanting to sincerely negotiate a bipartisan reform of lobbying. (McCain mocks Obama)
Well. 2008 so soon? Mehlman attacks Hillary on Sunday; McCain attacks Obama on Monday.
Yep, Sen. McCain, the wannabe president, finally pulled his disjointed nose from W.'s buttcheeks for some "straight talk." And for what? To stand up on his hind legs and demand the criminal king's impeachment?
Why, no; to pitch a hissy fit because Democrats won't be drawn into sharing the blame for Republican corruption. And, more specifically, to attack a Democratic senator who could stand in the way of McCain's 2008 ambition.
But why the irrational outburst of anger, now, Senator?
We know you must go to bed every night and wake up every morning still seething at your nemesis W. and his political henchmen who, in typical Republican fashion, muddied and sullied you in the 2000 primaries.
I feel your anger -- anger you now direct at someone other than the man before whom you have, grudgingly but grinningly, prostrated yourself on a regular basis for nearly six long years.
There is a word for your behavior, Senator. It's called displacement, a defense mechanism by which one transfers emotions and reactions away from the source and toward something or someone else.
Luckily for you, there is treatment for your condition, but you must act quickly. 2008 is just around the corner -- but I don't need to tell you that. So lose the anger. Heed the words of your favorite party patsy, Ms Mehlman, who recently remarked, "voters dislike angry candidates".
And, after you deal with the displaced anger, your newfound freedom will allow you to move on to a more difficult inner battle: regaining the self-respect you sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
See McCain and Obama letters, Feb. 2-6, 2006
Posts
