In 2007, Democratic presidential contender John Edwards accepted a Father Of The Year award. In 2006, John Edwards was banging some broad he picked up in a bar, Rielle Hunter, as Edwards' wife was battling cancer. Classy. He also put the broad he was banging on his campaign payroll as a videographer, paying her over $100,000, even though she didn't have any experience or qualifications. Rielle Hunter had a baby in february, and the father is unknown. There is speculation that Edwards may be the father. Somebody is still paying Rielle Hunter $15,000 per month. That is unknown at this point too. Edwards claims his affair with Miss Hunter ended in 2006, but if so, why did Edwards meet Hunter at the Beverly Hilton for 5 hours a couple weeks ago, exiting her hotel room at 2:45 in the morning ? Edwards ran away when confronted by National Enquirer reporters at that hotel, and barricaded himself into the hotel bathroom (there's a presidential action for you. What would Edwards have done as CINC during a foreign attack, pee his pants and put his hands over his eyes ?). The National Enquirer says Edwards has met with Miss Hunter at least 3 times in the last couple months. That's an odd way to conduct an ended affair.

Is Edwards a hypocrite ? Do birds fly ?

I have to say, I've never considered the National Enquirer to be a reliable news source, and I didn't really believe their story at first. Prior to his confession, where Edwards claimed to be 'ashamed' of his actions and 'bared his soul', John Edwards condemned the Enquirer as a trashy tabloid who lied and made up false stories about him. The problem was, when Edwards said those things, HE was the one lying and making up false stories. The Enquirer was telling the truth. Ouch. It must hurt when one is LESS honest than a sensationalist tabloid magazine that prints stories about outer space aliens working as 7-11 clerks in New Jersey. Then again, Edwards used to be an ambulance chasing lawyer who brought bogus lawsuits against physicians. As physicians were trying to heal the sick, Edwards was trying to pick their pockets, so it's not like the Breck Girl was really all that honorable from the start. And after being a shyster, Edwards went into politics, another profession where lying with a straight face is a valued skill. It wasn't really shocking to me to find out Edwards was full of it. There were hints the size of minivans.

During the confession of his affair, Edwards said he had become "egocentric and narcissistic" while campaigning for president. That sure rings true, even if Edwards claim that his affair ended in 2006 doesn't. I venture to say Edwards was still egocentric and narcissistic in 2007 and 2008 as well, because he made the decision to seek the Democratic presidential nomination AFTER he knew he had this huge skeleton hanging in his closet. That takes some ego. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Democratic party had Edwards won the presidential nomination, and THEN THIS SCANDAL BROKE ??? It would have made Gary Hart's tryst with Donna Rice look like a game of spin the bottle. Edwards would have blown the Dems sky high right before a presidential election, and John Edwards, man of the people (he's the son of a mill worker, you know), was perfectly willing to risk ALL that for his own ambition.

After being caught red-handed and forced to confess his affair, John Edwards still maintained that the National Enquirer was the liar, and Edwards faults himself because "…being 99 percent honest is no longer enough." Sorry, Johnny, I don't see the 99 percent honesty on your part here. Or even 1 percent.

Edwards also claims he shared "every painful detail" of his affair with his wife, Elizabeth. How creepy is that ? 'Well first, Elizabeth, I unbuttoned her blouse, then I stripped off her panties, and then….' Thanks, John, but keep the details to yourself. Your wife has been through enough.

The main problem with America's health care system isn't too difficult to determine. The problem is, health care is way too expensive. It's so expensive that many people can't afford it. It's so expensive that many people forego health care insurance. As an example, a friend of mine recently went to see a specialist to diagnose his back injury. That office visit cost $765. He then had two MRI's at a cost of $4500. The total cost was $5265 just for my friend to receive a diagnosis of his back injury (a fracture). No treatment of his injury was included for that price. This is just one tiny example of the insanely high costs associated with health care in this country. Here are some numbers about the high cost of health care from the non-partisan National Coalition On Health Care:

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP. In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

Keep this in mind as we compare the health care plans of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. I'd take it as a given that any health care plan that doesn't attempt to reign in these crazily high costs will ultimately collapse under it's own weight, and is therefore a bad plan for America.

The Obama and McCain health care plans are pretty much polar opposites. Obama's is centered around government control and McCain's is centered on free markets. Here's how the Cato Institute summarized the respective plans:

Senator Obama’s approach relies heavily on government mandates, regulations, and subsidies. He would mandate that employers provide health care coverage for their workers and that parents purchase health insurance for their children. He would significantly increase regulation of the insurance industry, establishing a standard minimum benefits package, and requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health. He would offer a variety of new and expanded subsidies to middle- and low-income Americans. [Link to Obama's website for details on his health care plan]

In contrast, John McCain emphasizes consumer choice and greater competition in the health care industry. He would move away from our current employment-based insurance system by replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit for individuals. At the same time he would sharply deregulate the insurance industry to increase competition. [Link to McCain's website for details on his health care plan]

HEALTH CARE COST REDUCTION: Both Obama and McCain make a claim for cost control in their health care plans.

Obama promises to modernize the heath care system to save money. After reading from his website several of the methods he'll use (integrate care, monitor providers, preventive care, catastrophic illness subsidization, cost transparency, electronic technology), I'm unconvinced they will reduce the cost of health care at all. It's as if Obama thinks he can micromanage the entire private health care industry, which is definitely beyond his grasp. He also promises to subsidize those who cannot afford insurance and calls that cost control, when it isn't. Subsidization is just another word for taxation. That is cost redistribution, not cost reduction. When I look at Obama's plan from a cost control standpoint, I see many new government mandates and regulations on health care providers and insuerers, and those invariably increase costs, not lower them. Where Obama's health care plan CAN reduce costs is through government intervention in the marketplace, through directly mandated lower costs. The Obama plan proposes to limit the amount of profit insurance companies can make, requiring them to funnel 'excess' profits into lower patient premiums. 'Excess' profit remains undefined by Obama (has anyone else noticed that liberals are attempting to gradually outlaw business profits ? Creep, creep, creep). Obama also proposes to lower prescription drug prices by allowing drugs to be purchased at lower prices in Canada and overseas (look kids ! a market-based reform ! This one would probably work. Yippee !…but what about FDA approval on those foreign drugs ?), and he would also allow the government to 'negotiate' with drug companies.

John McCain's health care plan would provide greater competition between insurance companies by allowing those companies to compete for business nationwide, instead of on a state-by-state basis. Like Obama, McCain would allow re-importation of drugs, greater use of generic drugs, coordinated care, prevention measures, new medical infrastructure, transparency, and technology. McCain wants to make Medicare more efficient. He also wants to pass tort reform to stop lawsuits against doctors who follow clinical guidelines and follow safety protocols. The heart of McCain's health care reform, however, is direct refundable tax credits for health care. Individuals would receive a $2500 tax credit, families a $5000 tax credit, to offset the high costs of insurance. This helps offset the cost of insurance to Americans without involving the iron hand of government, which I love, but it doesn't lower the costs of health care. Also, if you remember how much health insurance costs on the average ($4400 individual, $12000 family of four), McCain's health care credits don't cover it all, they just make coverage cheaper.

In the end, neither Obama's nor McCain's plan will probably alleviate the massive costs of health care significantly, though each could have some cost reduction effects. My buddy's back problem would still cost a bundle just for a diagnosis. Obama's plan would go further toward insuring the uninsured, though it won't achieve nor mandate universal coverage. Obama recently said that illegal immigrants would not be covered under his plan. Illegals make up a significant portion of those 47 million uninsured in America. Obama's plan will cost the taxpayers a bundle, while McCain's plan will save the taxpayers a bundle (but offset by what spending cuts, Johnny ? We can't keep running deficits, and you also promised to balance the budget). I'd prefer to save taxpayers a bundle, so I like McCain's approach better than Obama's. Obama's approach would be a giant step toward socialized medicine, which is tanking in Canada and Europe. It results in rationed care and long waits for treatment, and ends with the government telling you what medical procedures you can and can't have. And if you think lobbying and influence peddling is bad now, wait until the government controls such a huge chunk of our economy as health care. It'll be corruption city. No thanks. Obama's plan would also be very burdensome for small businesses and even large businesses, whom Obama would penalize if they didn't provide health care insurance coverage for their employees. McCain's plan allows for business growth, especially small business growth, by transferring the ever increasing health care burden away from business. That is a very big deal economically. McCain's plan will provide a tangential economic stimulus that would result in rising wages, lower prices, or lower unemployment. Obama's provides an economic damper that would result in lower wages, higher prices, and higher unemployment.

Verdict: McCain's plan is far from perfect, and it won't solve the uninsured problem (though it'll reduce it), but Obama's Big Brother, Big Tax, Big Spend approach scares the bejesus out of an old rumrunner like myself. Them dad-burned revenooers. Git the buckshot, Cletus. There has to be a better way.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Planet) adjourned the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday morning at 11:23am, so our esteemed representatives could go on their five week summer recess. The adjournment vote was along partisan lines, with Republicans voting to stay in session to get an up/down vote on offshore oil drilling (which Congress and 78% of Americans support), and with the Pelosi-led Democrats voting to flip America the bird. The Dems turned off the lights and the microphones. C-SPAN turned off their cameras.

But a group of House Republicans stayed right where they were and kept on talking in protest, in the dark, without microphones, and without the cameras rolling. Some news media, including Politico, stayed to chronicle the events, even though the KGB Democrats were trying to kick them out.

“This is the people’s House. This is not Pelosi's politburo,” said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). Amen, brother.

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.

Update: The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don't want Republicans getting any press for this episode. GOP leaders are trying to find other Republicans to rotate in for Blunt so reporters aren't kicked out.

Update 2: This message was sent out by Blunt's office:

"Although this Democrat majority just adjourned for the Democrat 5-week vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN cameras have been turned off, House Republicans are on the floor speaking to the taxpayers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican energy proposals.

"All Republicans who are in town are encouraged to come to the House floor."

Update 3: Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.

Update 4: Republican leaders just sent out a notice looking for a bullhorn, and leadership aides are trying to corral all the members who are still in town to come speak on the floor and sustain this one-sided debate.

The House adjourned about three hours ago, but GOP lawmakers — outraged that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats went home for five weeks without allowing a vote on offshore drilling — have refused to leave the floor. Even though C-SPAN can't show you what's going on (C-SPAN is prevented from showing what's happening on the floor when the House is out of session), Republicans are holding an unprecedented session on the House floor. They have brought in dozens of their members, who are walking up and down the aisles making speeches. They have packed the floors and galleries with staffers. When Capitol Police tried to remove reporters from the gallery, Republicans stopped it from happening. The crowd has repeatedly broken out in chants of "Vote, vote, vote!"

Update 5: The scene on the floor is kind of crazy. Normally, members are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor galleries, and visitors are prohibited from cheering. But in this case, the members are walking up and down on the floor during their speeches, standing on chairs. The visitors are cheering loudly. Some members even brought in visitors, who are now sitting on the House floor in the seats normally filled by lawmakers, cheering and clapping. Very funny.

Democrats faced a choice here: Should they leave the cameras on and let Republicans rip Pelosi & Co. on C-SPAN, or should they leave the cameras off and let the Republicans have their "tantrum," as one Democratic aide characterized it, with the cameras off? So the cameras are off, but Republicans, and the crowd, are clearly enjoying the scene.

Update 6: Republicans are literally hugging each other on the House floor. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), not normally known as a distinguished orator, just gave a rousing speech, accusing Democrats of stifling dissent. He referenced President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after being defeated in his presidential reelection bid. Waving his arms and yelling, Manzullo brought the crowd (including a lot of staffers shipped in by GOP leaders to fill up the place), and he left the floor to hugs from his colleagues. You don't see that up here every day.

Update 7: Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chamber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said, "I am a Democrat, and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around the House floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

Update 8: It's over.

Right at the stroke of five Georgia Rep. Tom Price announced that House Republicans were ending their impromptu protest on the floor of the chamber, ending a five-plus hour rebellion with a round of "God Bless America."

The assembled tourists, aides and members in the chamber gave Price and his compatriots a standing ovation. They left the chamber to shouts of "USA! USA! USA!"

Call this a stunt if you wish, but I think this is exactly the type of stunt we need more of, to awaken America and to force the Democrats to do the right thing. The Republican protest already bore fruit, as Hopey McChangerson (aka Barack Obama, the Human Jellyfish) FLIP-FLOPPED on offshore oil drilling as the Republicans were protesting. Now he's in favor of it. Hopey, of course, only flip-flopped because he's losing votes as the GOP gets traction on the drilling issue, but who cares why he did it. It only matters that he DID do it. The voice of the people still works, but we can't stay silent and think everything is going to work out anyway. If we have to drag Dems kicking and screaming into the light, so be it. Way to go, GOP.

Barack Obama, his campaign cronies, and the liberal media have been predicting racially-oriented attacks against Obama from the "Republican smear machine" for at least a year now. Actually, "predicting" is the wrong word. The Obamans didn't predict racist attacks, they STATED WITH CERTAINTY that the racist Republicans would try to scare Americans to death by playing the race card against Obama. In fact, they were so certain these attacks would occur that they have imagined them into being out of nothing. In the absence of any overt racism by Republicans, the Obamans go looking for the "subtext," the "veiled racism." Let me explain how this subtle form of racism happens.

If a Republican says "Obama is inexperienced," what the Republican really means is "Obama is black."
If a Republican says "Obama wants to lose the war in Iraq," what the Republican really means is "Obama is black."
If a Republican says "Obama's economic plan is a disaster," what the Republican really means is "Obama is black."
If a Republican says "Obama is all style and no substance," what the Republican really means is….well, you get the picture.

See how that works ? It's quite simple. Such lunacy used to be called paranoia, but no more. Now, such phony baloney is taken seriously by the news media, and some of the most imaginary of the media personalities (Keith Olbermann comes immediately to mind), believe completely in this imaginary Republican racism ("look Rachel ! McCain called Obama a CELEBRITY ! That's a code word !").

Even worse, Barack Obama apparently believes in this imaginary racism too. He as much as called John McCain's campaign racist by making the following statement:

“[McCain's] spending an awful lot of time talking about me. You notice that?” Obama asked a crowd of just over one thousand seated in a university gym. “I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s going to do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things. They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”

Let's be clear. John McCain has NEVER made a racial reference to Barack Obama. He has NEVER said anything remotely resembling the "he doesn't look like us" comment that Obama is attributing to him. Obama is offering up a complete fiction here.

Obama has played variations on the "I don't look like the other presidents" theme many times. He played the race card against the Clintons, though in fairness, there were a couple comments from Bill Clinton that could reasonably have been considered race-based, and a left wing blogger and Hillary supporter did start that Michelle Obama "whitey" rumor. Now Obama is playing the race card again against John McCain in the face of absolutely no evidence. When the McCain campaign correctly shot back at the Obama campaign for the phony racist charge, Obama's press secretary Bill Burton responded with the following coverup:

"Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they’re using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he’ll continue to talk about."

Say what ??? If Obama doesn't believe McCain is using race as an issue, then why did Obama ACCUSE McCain of using race as an issue ? Of course Obama was talking about race. Burton's illogical gibberish has become an Obama campaign staple, where the opposite of the truth is presented as the truth by the Obamans. Another recent example of this phenomenon is Obama's statement about offshore oil drilling, where Obama claims that drilling will "merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years." Again, say what ??? The failed policies of the past 30 years are to a large part based upon the fact that DOMESTIC OIL DRILLING HAS BEEN BANNED the entire time. Enabling offshore oil drilling would be a reversal of the failed policies of the past, not a continuance of them. Obama's statement about drilling is as fictional as his statements about Republican racism.

Obama owes McCain an apology for his race-based comments, not that I expect McCain will receive one. It seems to me that when race does enter this political campaign, it originates from Obama's side, not from the opposition.

In clarifying his position regarding the Iraq war, Barack Obama said the following:

"I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out."

That is a very definitive statement. Very decisive. Very presidential. It would be very impressive, except for one minor detail…

The Joint Chiefs of Staff don't have operational command of U.S. military forces. They don't carry out the mission in Iraq. They serve as military advisors to the President. Obama can tell them anything he wants, and it won't change a thing in Iraq. If Barry Brilliant wants to change the mission in Iraq, he needs to tell the Secretary of Defense and the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands (CENTCOM commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and the US commander for Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno).

I know Obama doesn't have any military experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any management experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any foreign policy experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any economics experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any executive experience, and I know Obama has precious little congressional experience, and I know Obama has changed his views on almost every major policy issue you can name, but is it too much to ask for Obama to actually figure out how the federal government works prior to becoming President ? I think not. There should be SOME requirements to be President beside the ability to con gullible people into voting for you. Perhaps we need a NPLB program (No President Left Behind).

I'm wondering, is it possible for Obama to serve a summer Presidential internship or something under Dubya prior to the fall elections ? He really needs the experience, and 2009 is coming up pretty quick. It would really be a shame if a President Obama THOUGHT he ended the war, and then 16 months later he discovered all the troops were still in Iraq going "withdraw ? Nobody told us to withdraw." Maybe Obama could wear an President Trainee badge around the White House for the next couple months that reads "Hello, my name is Barack Obama. Ask me about the chain of command."

I am, of course, assuming Barack could first pass the mandatory background check and drug test for the President Trainee job. Also, the President must be a non-smoker (for insurance reasons), so Obama could be disqualified right there. Luckily for BHO, he won't be required to submit a resume or even pass a basic skills test. President of the United States is apparently an entry level position, no experience required. You'd think the President would at least have to pass a civil service exam, but I guess the position isn't as critical as, say, a sewer worker or a fireman. Those people need tangible skills.

Talking about Obama reminds me, July 16th was Cost Of Government Day (COGD). That's when the average American pays his share of government's financial burden. Happy COGD, each and every one of you. It's great to live in freedom. To celebrate, go ahead and splurge today. Buy a quart of gasoline. We could arrange COGD parties every year, but you never know on which day COGD will fall, because government keeps growing and growing. If we elect Barack Obama, who promises to "invest in American families" (aka, tax and spend) as far as the eye can see, it won't be long until we can celebrate COGD with a costume party, because it will probably fall on Halloween. Sigh.

Above is a photo of Flipper, who somehow seemed appropriate for this post. Hi Flipper !

It has recently been brought to my attention that there is another fellow running for president, one whose name is NOT Barack Obama. Has anyone else heard about this ? I heard it mentioned on FoxNews the other day, in between the Obama stories and Obama speeches. His name is John McCain, and he's a Republican, in the mold of Democrat turned Independent, Joe Lieberman. I hear this McCain guy might even have purchased Alan Greenspan's book to learn about the economy, so you know he's a serious candidate. Obama bought Karl Marx's book to learn about the economy. That reminds me, don't forget to buy your tickets for Obamapalooza ! They're selling out fast ! I thought it might be a good idea to check McCain's record, since he could become president if Obama decides to move to Tibet and become a monk prior to november 4th, 2008.

John McCain has over two decades of military experience, over two decades of Congressional experience, and ran for president in 2000 (this is what former general Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, refers to as "untested and untried", and with a straight face too ! Must be Clark's counterintelligence training).

McCain has a reputation for being a "maverick", which means he often stands against his own party on issues. This garnered much pseudo-love for Johnny Mac from the media throughout his career, but at some point McCain realized he'd have to get Republicans to vote for him if he wanted to become the Republican nominee (who says McCain's not too bright ?), so the maverick started jumping back and forth over a lot of fences to make himself appear more conservative base-friendly. He catered to some evangelicals he formerly disliked, and he decided those Bush tax cuts weren't so bad after all. He referred to himself as a "Reagan footsoldier" a lot during the primaries, and voila, it worked. McCain defeated Huckleberry and the Mormon (the guy the GOP SHOULD have picked as their nominee, who would have beaten Obama), and became the Republican nominee (note - To whom it may concern, Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is STILL missing. The search has been called off, though Rudy's picture is still on many milk cartons).

In any case, the Republicans are stuck with McCain now, so let's examine his flip-flops on the issues. Tracking McCain's flip-flops is no easy task, since most lists of them are contained on far left websites, and are thus wildly inaccurate. The far left websites are some of the biggest liars on the planet. One of the best website lists of McCain flip-flops is a sweet and rabidly "objective" little site called How Insane Is John McCain ? This site is about half right and half lies, and is also a perfect example of liberal compassion, tolerance, and diversity. It's premise, obviously, is that McCain is mentally unstable. That reminds me, the media wants me to tell you that the Republican attack machine is racist and will smear Barack Obama, so get your tickets to Obamapalooza NOW ! Children under 12 are indoctrinated for free.

Without further ado, here are some of J-Mac's more "nuanced" positions:

Tax cuts flip-flop -
McCain's most famous flip-flop. He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. Now he wants to make them permanent, and is even proposing more tax cuts if he becomes president. Back in 2001, McCain said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
Hopefully, McCain learned something about economics since 2001, but I doubt it. High taxes are very bad for our country. I call this a flip-flop in the right direction, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Liberals, who have never heard of the principle of scarcity, which underlies all economic theory, disagree. They want to send as much money as possible to Washington D.C. Somehow, they call this "fairness".
===
Social Security privatization flip-flop -
"I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be” - John McCain, June 2008.
“Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits” - John McCain, November 2004
“As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed” - John McCain, March 2003
This is undoubtedly a flip-flop, right ? Nope. It sounds like one, but it isn't. You must remember, Bush's Social Security plan was NOT a plan to privatize Social Security. It only contained a provision for a SMALL PART of SS funds to be placed into private accounts. Therefore, McCain could support Bush's plan for private accounts, as he did, and still be against a total privatization of Social Security, as he is. Subtract one flip-flop.
===
Abortion flip-flop -
“In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade…[overturning Roe would force] women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” - John McCain, 1999.

McCain in 2006, during an interview with George Stephanopolous:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion…You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

We'll call this the flip-flop for the evangelical vote that I mentioned earlier.
===
McCain flip-flopped on offshore oil drilling once gas reached $4 per gallon. Good ! Now if he'd only flip on ANWR. I guess that won't happen until gas hits $5 per gallon.
===
And if anyone can tell me what McCain thinks about immigration, please let me know. I can't figure it out. He came out with a plan, then was against his own plan, and now he's saying he's for it again. The Straight Talk Express has me straight confused on this one. I'll call this one a double reverse flip-flop with a half twist ending in a belly flop. I don't even want to hear what McCain has to say on the immigration issue anymore.
===
Ethanol flip-flop -
"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." - John McCain on CNN in 2003.

"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects" - John McCain, 2006.

Johnny must have watched Al Gore's movie.
===
The left-wing websites characterize many other McCain positions as flip-flops that really aren't. These include the estate tax, the 100 years in Iraq comment, FISA, and others. I have purposely left those off the list. In conclusion, let's just say that John McCain doesn't have much room to talk about Obama's many flip-flops. During the GOP primaries, the media made much of Mitt Romney's flip-flops, but they zipped their lips about McCain, who has as many if not more than Romney ever did. Now that Johnny Mac has the GOP nomination, the media suddenly discovered that John McCain has flip-flopped on about every position he ever held. Funny how that works, isn't it ? All the news that fits the agenda.

Barack Obama's flip-flops are coming so fast and furious these days that I think we should rename the Obama campaign Shock And Awe. It's shocking how easily Obama abandons a previously held position, and we should all be in awe of the fact that he gets away with it. Now, I'm just spitballing here, but wouldn't it be nice if we had some kind of group that would keep track of the issues and could question Obama on his endless contradictions before we make him the leader of the free world ? That would be very helpful and informative for the American voting public. We could call that group, say, the media.

Sadly, the majority of the mainstream media isn't much interested in speaking truth to power when it comes to St. Barack. They are more interested in swooning at his eloquence and patting themselves on the back for how wonderfully cosmopolitan and progressive they are. Truth has nothing to do with it. Who cares if Obama flip-flops on an issue or twenty ? That only demonstrates his "complexity". Yeah, that's the ticket.

But I'm probably just distracting you from the issues America really cares about.

The latest rollover by Obama is his stance on gay marriage. Previously, he opposed gay marriage, but said that individual states should have the right to form their own policies on the issue. Then California proposed an initiative to ban gay marriage, and….Obama OPPOSES it. So much for states rights. The gay marriage issue has become like so, so many others for Barack Obama. He opposes gay marriage, except for when he doesn't. In a letter to a San Francisco based lesbian/gay alliance group, Obama said he believes in:

“fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law…And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states”

Yet Obama still says he opposes gay marriage. Yup. Okay. Whatever. Hope and change. This is a historic election. It's the first time an invisible man will become president.

In addition to Obama opposing gay marriage (sorta), supporting the Second Amendment (sometimes), supporting the FISA bill (for now), supporting NAFTA (except when in Ohio or Michigan), and opposing the Fairness Doctrine (definitely, maybe), Barack made a speech yesterday voicing his support for the expansion of faith-based initiatives. With the continued softening of Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, and his backpedaling on increasing the capital gains tax rate, it's starting to look like Obama is nothing but a "Bush third termer", if I may borrow a Democratic talking point (Sorry Dems, I couldn't resist taking that shot). When Bush started faith-based initiatives, the entire Left screamed "separation of church and state !" in unison. They were certain Bush was going to implement a theocratic thug state, reminiscent of the Taliban, but without the bourkas. That didn't happen, naturally, but what is the Left saying now about Barack the evangelical faith-baser ? They should be apoplectic, but so far the protests are far less than deafening. The Huffington Post mentioned Obama's faith-based speech (far down the page), but only said it "could cause controversy", and that Obama was doing it to "court the evangelical vote". No outrage from HuffPo, not that I really thought there would be. Somehow it's different when it's one of their own.

Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism yesterday. I pretty much agreed with every word uttered by Mr. Obama in that speech. It's worth the read. Even though it was a self-serving and calculated speech, as are all of his (he IS a politician, after all), the principles he stated were sound, and quite patriotic. Obama said he would not question anybody's patriotism in this presidential campaign, and he will not sit idly by while anyone questions his. Clever bugger, that Obama, since it is virtually impossible for any sane person to question the patriotism of John McCain, while questions of Obama's associations with anti-american sentiment are rife (Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayers, Mrs. Obama, flag pins, and all that). Obama can't win a patriotism contest with John McCain (few could), so he's trying to take that issue off the table.

I don't question Obama's patriotism. I take him at his word, but I do question some of those past associations of his. It's a matter of judgement, not patriotism. When a guy like Obama has a history of being a leftist, I'm a little suspicious of the new centrist Obama who has appeared just in time to win the general election and become the president (with a Democratic majority Congress led by liberals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). Obama's tack appears much more strategy than principle. That I do not admire (not that McCain can't be accused of the same tacking into favorable political winds on some issues).

Obama also said it isn't unpatriotic to dissent when you disagree with your government. That is also unquestionably true. Sometimes, dissent is required. I have dissented with some aspects of my government for most of my adult life.

But there is a difference between dissent and undermining your country. There is a difference between dissent and propaganda. There is a difference between dissent and lies. There is a difference between dissent and hate. I wish Obama had drawn some of those distrinctions in his speech, but he did not. As Obama was speaking about how dissent was patriotic, I was thinking of Moveon.org's "General Betray-us" ad, of Hillary Clinton saying it took "the willing suspension of disbelief" to believe Petraeus' testimony about the success of the Surge in Iraq. The "dissenters" had no problem calling Petraeus a liar for their own political gain. I was thinking about how the New York Times has divulged multiple classified U.S. intelligence programs during wartime (they did it again the other day by revealing classified details of the hunt for Bin laden). I was thinking about Seymour Hersch recently revealing classified information about alleged covert cross-border intelligence operations into Iran. I was even thinking about how the left-wing dissenters called American soldiers "baby killers" back during the Vietnam War. Thank goodness the hatemongers dissenters learned not to do that anymore……Except a few of them haven't learned. John Murtha (D-Pa), a former marine himself, accused the Haditha marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" in Iraq before any of them had even been tried, and now 7 of the 8 of Haditha soldiers have been acquitted. I haven't heard any apologies from the Distinguished Gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Dick Durbin compared Guantanomo Bay to Pol Pot and the Nazis.

That stuff isn't really dissent. That stuff is political propaganda designed to undermine the American government during wartime, with the reason being the acquisition of political power. There is nothing patriotic about any of that.

Lastly, I was thinking about outright political horse manure, like the kind general Wesley Clark was slinging about John McCain the other day, in what has to be one of the most tone-deaf displays of political nonsense to date. Clark actually tried to call McCain inexperienced, when McCain is the most experienced candidate to run for president from either party this year. Apparently, irony and hypocrisy don't register with Wes Clark, because the candidate Clark is backing, Barack Obama, is the most inexperienced person ever to get this close to the presidency. Clark actually called McCain "untested and untried", said about McCain that "he hasn’t held executive responsibility" (as opposed to all Obama's executive experience - NONE). Clark even said that McCain's "large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall". Uh, general Clark, John McCain's plane was SHOT DOWN IN VIETNAM. That's about as "wartime" as you can get. Duh, general. Btw, exactly what military service and experience does Barack Obama have ? That would also be NONE. See just how dumb Wesley Clark is here.

To his credit, Obama disavowed Clark's remarks, and I assume Clark has blown his shot at the vice presidency.

Can you say "cheesy" ? - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually traveled all the way to a town called UNITY, New Hampshire to meet, in an effort to bring Hillary supporters and Obama supporters together into one united Democratic party.

Unity, N.H. Oh, brother. Hand me an air sickness bag, please. Were all the hotel rooms booked up in Stupidsymboliccrap, South Dakota ? The candidates actually wasted jet fuel for such an empty gesture ? This one ranks pretty high on the list of all-time silly political theatrics. I half expected Michael Dukakis to show up in his tank.

In related news, John McCain's campaign made a stop in Deadhorse, Alaska.
===
Speaking of dead things, contrarian Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Rich Lowry on PBS and said "if the GOP was a dog, it would be shot", among other things. Indeed, it looks like the GOP will be shot, precisely on November 4th, 2008. The interview is standard Hitchens fare and pretty entertaining. He's an equal opportunity offender, and takes shots at everyone - McCain, the GOP, both Obamas, and both Clintons. See it here.
===
We all know how the Left likes to ban things (guns, cigarettes, radio talk show hosts, army recruiting offices, free speech on college campuses, christian symbols, capitalism, logical thought, etc). Now, it seems they've even taken to separating food into patriotic and non-patriotic categories for purposes of banning the unpatriotic ones. For the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, the unpatriotic foods (fried) are banned, and only the patriotic foods (green) are allowed. Denver's mayor, John "Chickpea" Hickenlooper, called it "the new patriotism". Link.

Great. And here I thought the Soup Nazi was just a funny character on the Seinfeld show.

No word yet on whether onion rings and Southern fried chicken will be sent to Gitmo. Senate investigatory hearings are forthcoming, as soon as the Dems finish interviewing every last American citizen regarding their knowledge of Valerie Plame.
===
Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader is tired of Democrats blaming him for Al Gore losing in 2000. Nader said, "They [the Democrats] are so small-minded to keep the myth up that it wasn't them that got Bush in the White House, it was Nader/LaDuke.”

This is news to me. I didn't think the Dems had finished blaming the Supreme Court for 2000 yet.
===
In the weirdest story of the day, John McCain's former jailer at the Hanoi Hilton for 5 1/2 years said he'd vote for McCain if he was an american voter. From the Associated Press:

"If I were an American voter, I would vote for Mr. John McCain," Tran Trong Duyet said Friday, sitting in his living room in the northern city of Haiphong, surrounded by black-and-white photos of a much younger version of himself and former Vietnam War prisoners.

At the same time, he denies prisoners of war were tortured. Despite detailed POW accounts and physical wounds, Duyet claims the presumed Republican presidential nominee made up beatings and solitary confinement in an attempt to win votes.

Of course, if Duyet had admitted McCain and the other Hanoi Hilton prisoners WERE tortured, he'd be in jail himself. There is no freedom of speech in Vietnam. It is a communist dictatorship, due to the fact that………..well, you know. Peace with honor.

Over four months until the elections. It will only get deeper.

Now that Barack Obama has captured the Democratic nomination, it appears his campaign has moved into Presidential Calculation Phase 2.0, Operation Win The General Election. Obama has taken more non-left wing positions in the last few weeks than he's taken in his entire previous political career. He angered liberals by reversing his stance on public campaign financing. He reversed his position against the FISA bill and supported it. He reversed his position on NAFTA, said his previous smoke on the issue was "overheated campaign rhetoric", and now supports it. He came out in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that abolished the death penalty for child rapists, and now, he has even come out in opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. Is that the gnashing of liberal teeth I hear ?

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," [Obama's] press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday. "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Holy Pelosi, Batman ! Is this a Democrat supporting democracy ? A Democrat supporting free speech ? Wow. They haven't done much of that lately. Of course, Obama's spokesman did say that stuff about network neutrality, public broadcasting, and minority ownership, so Obama doesn't support freedom THAT much, but it's still a giant step forward from the pro-Stalinist Pelosi position of reimposing the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle all those right-wing radio talk show hosts. You go, Barack ! Yes we can, er, I mean, good job.

Now try to remember the last time you heard a liberal come out in favor of the death penalty for ANY crime (other than the crime of being a Republican, that is). Yet, Obama favors the death penalty for child rapists, a stance that breaks with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, who thought the death penalty for child rape was excessive and therefore unconstitutional. This was another of those 5-4 decisions, with the conservative wing of the Court voting that the death penalty was not unconstitutional for child rape. This is one of the times when I think the liberals got it right, because I believe the death penalty is only an appropriate and proportional punishment for the crime of murder. Obama has even veered to the right of me on this issue. Who woulda thunk it ? Oddly enough, Obama previously took a position against expanding the death penalty for gangbangers who DO murder people. I'd attempt to explain the contradiction to you, but I didn't attend Harvard, so it's beyond my capability. It's too nuanced for the likes of me.

On to Obama's reversal on the FISA bill. From the Washington Post:

The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.

"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"

Most of the time, a decision that angers liberals groups is just fine with me, and this time is no different. Obama has the right concerns here. Oversight of the government's spying activities is the key. We don't want to handcuff ourselves in the fight against terrorism, but we do want to make sure the government doesn't exceed or abuse it's authority. I agree with Obama again (is this a sign of the apocalypse ???). Yes we ca…..never mind. I don't want to get carried away.

Now, if only somebody would teach Obama basic economics and convince him to stop trying to undermine the Iraq war when we're on the verge of victory………..

That would be change I could believe in.

And as long as Obama is making a right hand turn to sell himself to the general public, my estimation of him would increase greatly if he just admitted he was dead wrong about the Iraq surge.

But I won't be holding my breath. So far, the Obama spinmeisters have decided to flat out lie about that:

January 14, 2007: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." - Barack Obama

July 20, 2007: "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked." - Barack Obama

May 30, 2008: "[Barack Obama] never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference." - David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager.

Sigh.

Finally, in the ultimate bow to mainstreaming, check out Obama's family values television ad. It's truly precious, complete with the flag pin and everything (and listen to the background music. If any of you are South Park fans, it's reminiscent of Mr. Tweek's Coffee Shop music, lol).

Didn't the old Obama say flag pins were phony expressions of patriotism ? America, meet the new and improved Barack Obama, Version 2.0.