McCain's Pro-Veteran Rhetoric Exposed!

What is the reason for Barack Obama’s 80 percent overall rating from the Disabled Veterans of America in comparison to John McCain’s 20 percent? And what is the reason for Obama having received nearly six times as much contribution money from troops deployed overseas than has John McCain? And what is the reason that McCain received a “D” grade from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America? The reason is that troops and veterans agree that a McCain presidency will be wrong for this country, and they base it on his voting record.

McCain voted 27 times against veterans' health care needs!
McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would “encourage more people to leave the military.
Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of living adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits.
Although his campaign website devotes a large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to give members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families greater access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy.
McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. And McCain opposed an amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center—outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a “disgrace.”
McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies.
McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA.
McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies
McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion.
McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion.
John McCain said “I know the veterans, I know them well, and I know that they know that I'll take care of them, and I have been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans, and I love them, and I'll take care of them, and they know that I'll take care of them.” John McCain has misrepresented his own voting record with pro-veteran rhetoric!

Senator Obama believes America has a sacred obligation to our veterans. He is committed to creating a 21st Century Department of Veterans Affairs that provides the care and benefits our nation’s veterans deserve and has a record of supporting initiatives to improve veterans care and benefits.

Credit Where It's Due!

Kerry Hayes
Memphis TN
Obama Rapid Response

Let us please make sure that we pause and moment and give John McCain the credit he so richly deserves for his action the other evening on the emergency financial bailout package. While the U.S. economy appears heading for irretrievable ruin, McCain again threw the brakes on his drifting campaign and declared that this was an "all hands on deck" moment for the legislature. And who better to lead us in our hour of need that he, "a former Navy pilot," (a non-sequitur bit of bio which he never misses an opportunity to insert, no matter how or inappropriate or irrational.)

The only problem is, for McCain, this wasn't all hands on deck--it was no hands on deck and all eyes on McCain. He lied to Barack Obama in pledging that they would work together in crafting a bi-partisan response to the crisis on Wednesday, he lied to the public and the media in declaring that he was "suspending" his campaign, and during his much-watched return to Washington yesterday, he (according to Politico.com) "walked to his office with pal Joe Lieberman, said little at a contentious White House meeting, did a few TV interviews, [and] sped off to his home."

In other words, he did nothing. He offered no solutions, no insights, brokered no deals, and exhibited none of the vaunted bi-partisan, maverick-style leadership which he so desperately craves in this campaign's late hour.

Everyone now agrees that McCain's debate-postponement tactic was a politically motivate stunt, nothing more, but it was really only the tip of the problem. As time goes on, his actions (or lack of same) point to something much more serious.

It's one thing for McCain to play games with the Debate Commission--it's another thing entirely to play Russian roulette with the United States economy. Were it not for McCain, we would have our bailout package approved right now. However, because of his "intervention," we are approaching gridlock, and our nation's economy rushes ever closer to a precipice.

All of this reveals, again, that there is no trick too crazy, no strategy too absurd, no hail-mary pass too desperate for he and Steve Schmidt to try. They are desperate to divert the attention of the American people from the mess that they and their GOP cronies have created. Throughout this campaign, John McCain has shown his clear, abiding contempt for the intelligence of the electorate. Time is running out for John McCain, and unless we speak out strongly at this moment, it's running out for the future of our economy as well.

Georgia Conflict Orchestrated by USA Politics?

After an initial feeling of shock and anger at Russia's "invasion" of Georgia, I started looking up information. Like most Americans struggling with the day to day problems of making ends meet and family and work and so forth, I really didn't know too much about the little Democratic Georgia across the world. I learned that the United States government, in its pursuit of Democracy for all, had armed Georgia with weapons, money, and an attitude that they could face down big ole' Russia because the U.S. would be backing them. Then last night I watched an angry Mikail Gorbachav on Larry King Live expressing his feelings that the Bush administration had in effect orchestrated this whole thing for political reasons. Now, wasn't Carl Rove (vacationing?) in Europe (to avoid the supeona by Congress to tesify) just a week before this all happened? He was actually at the Yalta Conference with Mikhail Saakashvili, Bob Shrum, and Richard Haass. And shortly after the conference, Saakashvili made a reckless decision that prompted the Russian invasion of his country. Susequently, Saakashvili seemed to think that the United States was bound by some promise to defend Georgia, and issued public pronouncements to that effect. I woder where he got that idea? Hmmm: Rice, Rove and McCain all met with Mikheil Saakashvili since July 9. http://www.yes-ukraine.org/ You can view the full list of participants here:http://www.yes-ukraine.org/en/List_of_participants8.html Some real disturbing thoughts started to enter my mind, although I have to admit, it is hard for me to believe that anyone would instigate a war that has killed thousands of people, destroyed homes, schools, and hospitals, for political gain. History shows, though, that men can and have done these things (Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria . . .). Oh, and hasn't John McCain been a proponent against Russia for the past 8 years or so? Isn't this a convenient little war for him right now? I finally found Air America on my car radio yesterday, and lo and behold, people were calling in to the Rachel Maddow show with the very same thoughts as mine. What will it take for someone to get to the bottom of this, because if the American conscience becomes aware that this is true, John McCain will be finished! Please read the following articles published in the past few days - one from Mike Malloy, another from Pravda in Russia, and one from a blogger:

The Shoe Lady Speaks...by Mike Malloy
Which brings us to the current Russian crisis. The hot war now raging between Russia and the Republic of Georgia is yet another indicator of both Rice's uselessness and the ongoing global chaos perpetrated by the Cheney Cabal. His acid fingerprints are all over this destructive confrontation. This is a crisis years in the making, with a bloody explosion so inevitable it could have been predicted by even the most inexperienced U.S. foreign service employee.The damage done, Rice is now hustled onstage to declare her usual rhetorical nonsense when an utter catastrophe such as this one explodes with no evident foreknowledge or contingent planning on the part of the U.S. (Except, of course, our clandestine actions as the behind-the-scenes instigator. That, after all - national convulsions, civil disruptions, war - is what has given Dick Cheney such a hideous and deserved reputation and yet another example of what qualifies him as a future defendant before an international war crimes tribunal.)The Reuters News Agency reports: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday urged Russia and Georgia to end hostilities, saying progress apparently had been made toward a cease fire but it was important that all parties stop fighting. "I believe that they believe that they have made some progress and we welcome that and we certainly welcome the EU mediation," Rice told reporters at the White House after briefing President George W. Bush on French-led European Union efforts to mediate with Russia."It is very important now that all parties cease fire," Rice said. "The Georgians have agreed to a cease fire. The Russians need to stop their military operations as they have apparently said that they will. But those military operations really do now need to stop. "Rice said the United States supported Georgia's elected government. "I want to make very clear that the United States stands for the territorial integrity of Georgia, for the sovereignty of Georgia, that we support its democratically elected government and its people," she said.This is declaratory nonsense. Gibberish. Utter bullshit spoken by a shill for the most warlike and corrupt regime in U.S. history.As a result of her inability to provide effective leadership - any leadership for that matter - Rice should resign immediately. And the duties of the Secretary of State? They have been Dick Cheney's since the beginning of this horrific period of U.S. political history - the Administration of George W. Bush. Let's stop pretending its otherwise.

War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA Pravda

The US administration urged for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict between Russia and Georgia over the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia.In the meantime, Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo.“The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq – we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. South Ossetian defense officials used to make statements about imminent aggression from Georgia, but the latter denied everything, whereas the US Department of State reloaded not comments on the matter. In essence, they have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals. They are responsible for this. The world community will learn about it,” the official said.In the meantime, it became known that the Georgian troops conducted volley-fire cleansings of several South Ossetian settlements, where people’s houses were simply leveled.“The number of victims with women, children and elderly people among them, can be counted in hundreds and even thousands,” a source from South Ossetian government in the capital of Tskhinvali said.The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, told reporters that Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia question its consistency as a state and as aresponsible member of the international community, Interfax reports."Civilians, including women, children and elderly people are dying in South Ossetia. In addition to that, Georgia conducts ethnic scouring in South Ossetian villages. The situation in South Ossetia continues to worsen every hour. Georgia uses military hardware and heavy arms against people. They shell residential quarters of Tskhinvali [the capital] and other settlements. They bomb the humanitarian convoys. The number of refugees continues to rise – the people try to save their lives, the lives of their children and relatives. A humanitarian disaster is gathering pace,” Russia’s Foreign Minister said.The minister added that the Georgian administration ignored the appeal from the UN General Assembly to observe the Olympic truce during the Beijing Olympics.

Georgia war is a neocon election ploy
August 13, 2008
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?
Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.
Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. Iraq invasion.
There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.
In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq.

Affairs to Remember!

Senator John McCain is fighting accusations tonight from the New York Times that he had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The Senator released a statement to the Times calling the story a "smear campaign."


Cenk Uyger Huffington post
How is John McCain's Affair Different From John Edwards?

Now, we get to the most relevant question - if John Edwards' political career is done, why isn't John McCain's? John McCain had a well-documented affair on his first wife, with his current wife. He has admitted in the books he has written about his life that he ran around with several different women while still married to his first wife. And don't forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman - multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain - after she had been severely hurt in a car accident.
So, why are McCain's actions any more excusable than Edwards'? Because it was thirty years ago? Does that wash it away? Will we be fine with Edwards running for office again in a couple of years because then it will all be in the past? What is the statute of limitations on an affair?
Remember Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Ross Perot were so upset with how John McCain dealt with his first wife that they didn't forgive him for a very, very long time. Perot still hasn't forgiven him. In fact, he said recently about McCain dumping his first wife for Cindy, "McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory."
So, I want every pundit who condemns John Edwards today to tell me what the difference between him and McCain is and why John McCain shouldn't also be run out of politics for his adulterous affairs and what he did to his first wife.

Digby is the proprietor of Hullabaloo
Media Salivate Over Edwards' Affair; Shrug Shoulders Over McCain's Alleged Infidelity

I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's human nature. But it's important to keep in mind that John Edwards didn't even come close to winning the nomination and this is just another sleazy tabloid story with absolutely no serious significance other than the sickening spectacle of the prurient slavering of the mainstream media now that they have finally found their hook: it's because he lied to the press about his sex life. How could he???
(Lying to the press about the anthrax killers and WMD in Iraq, well, not a problem.)
Let's assume that the rules now say that denying an affair to the press is a cardinal offense that merits endless bloviating about dishonesty from a bunch of hypocritical celebrities who protect their "sources" when they lie about torture and war. Fine. But this guy actually may very well be president and they took his word for it:
I'm very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It's not true. And I'll be glad to respond to any questions you might have.
QUESTION: Senator, did you ever have any meeting with any of your staffers in which they would have intervened to ask you not to see Vicki Iseman or to be concerned about appearances of being too close to a lobbyist?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: No meeting ever occurred?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: No staffer was ever concerned about a possible romantic relationship?
MCCAIN: If they were, they didn't communicate that to me.
QUESTION: Did you ever have such relationship?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: Senator, can you describe your relationship with Vicki Iseman?
MCCAIN: Friends. Seen her on occasions, particularly at receptions and fund-raisers and appearances before the committee. I have many friends in Washington who represent various interests and those who don't, and I consider her a friend.
QUESTION: But do you feel like, in terms of your relationship with lobbyists in general, you were closer to her than with others?
MCCAIN: No, no.
I have many friends who represent various interests, ranging from the firemen to the police to senior citizens to various interests, particularly before my committee. And I had meetings with hundreds of them and various interests. And that was my job to do, to get their input.
And, obviously, people who represent interests are fine. That's their constitutional right. The question is is whether do they have access or unwarranted influence. And certainly, no one ever has in my conduct of my public life and the conduct of my legislative agenda.
QUESTION: Senator?
MCCAIN: Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Did John Weaver, who is one of your former top aides -- is quoted on the record saying that he had a conversation with her saying -- basically telling her to butt out.
Do you not know of that conversation? Do you know why John Weaver would go on the record describing such a conversation?
MCCAIN: I did not and I don't know anything about it.
Many people, especially in the press, jumped to defend McCain against the evil New York Times on that one and there has been no follow up. But considering how everyone is excusing the flogging of this Edwards story on the basis of the fact that he lied to the press, I'm not sure it's in the country's best interest not to ask McCain about this again and talk to the women herself. What if it comes out that it was true after he's president? Why surely the press will be as honor bound to obsess over it as they were about Clinton and now Edwards, right? It's not about the sex -- it's about the lying, remember? (They've been saying on a loop that John Edwards was a breath away from the presidency, after all and he got about four delegates.)
I personally don't care who any of these people are sleeping with (especially McCain). Marriage is a very complicated institution and I don't pass judgment on how others conduct theirs. I think this is all bullshit. But if the media has decided that even a failed politician who has no chance at the presidency can be subject to this kind of scrutiny, then they need to be a little bit more vigilant about pursuing someone who is the nominee of his party and has been very publicly linked to a specific woman by the paper of record, not the National Enquirer. If these are the rules, then this guy is a far more likely subject of scrutiny than Edwards.

FINALLY! Someone Says it Right!!!!

Well, someone finally has the nerve to say it like it is!!! Bob Herbert, Op-ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote an article lambasting the Republican Campaign's attack ads, and for once accurately pointing out exactly what the ad's symbols were meant to portray. On Morning Joe this morning he correctly explained to a white-faced, speechless Joe Scarborough why Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, Barack Obama, and two phallic symbols were shown within seconds of each other in the latest smear ad by John McCain & his staff. Joe quickly turned the camera on Pat Buchanan who joked and laughed about it along with staffers who were doubled over laughing as they took in the resulting e-mails. I am so sick of the crappola on Morning Joe and the daytime shows on MSNBC. This weekend I watched CNN where I actually found a new refreshing idea; they are making a committment to show videos of the candidates talking about the actual ISSUES!!! Can you believe it? Its called "In Their Own Words" or something like that. MSNBC better take note! Morning Republican Joe and the Bubblehead Daytime hosts are off of my schedule!

Op-Ed Columnist
By BOB HERBERT
Published: August 2, 2008
Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.
Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain. You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.”
There was nothing subtle about that attempt to position Senator Obama as the Other, a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not sufficiently patriotic and certainly not one of us — the “us” being the genuine red-white-and-blue Americans who the ad was aimed at.
Since then, Senator McCain has only upped the ante, smearing Mr. Obama every which way from sundown. On Wednesday, The Washington Post ran an extraordinary front-page article that began:
“For four days, Senator John McCain and his allies have accused Senator Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.”
Evidence? John McCain needs no evidence. His campaign is about trashing the opposition, Karl Rove-style. Not satisfied with calling his opponent’s patriotism into question, Mr. McCain added what amounted to a charge of treason, insisting that Senator Obama would actually prefer that the United States lose a war if that would mean that he — Senator Obama — would not have to lose an election.
Now, from the hapless but increasingly venomous McCain campaign, comes the slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. The two highly sexualized women (both notorious for displaying themselves to the paparazzi while not wearing underwear) are shown briefly and incongruously at the beginning of a commercial critical of Mr. Obama.
The Republican National Committee targeted Harold Ford with a similarly disgusting ad in 2006 when Mr. Ford, then a congressman, was running a strong race for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee. The ad, which the committee described as a parody, showed a scantily clad woman whispering, “Harold, call me.”
Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.
The racial fantasy factor in this presidential campaign is out of control. It was at work in that New Yorker cover that caused such a stir. (Mr. Obama in Muslim garb with the American flag burning in the fireplace.) It’s driving the idea that Barack Obama is somehow presumptuous, too arrogant, too big for his britches — a man who obviously does not know his place.
Mr. Obama has to endure these grotesque insults with a smile and heroic levels of equanimity. The reason he has to do this — the sole reason — is that he is black.
So there he was this week speaking evenly, and with a touch of humor, to a nearly all-white audience in Missouri. His goal was to reassure his listeners, to let them know he’s not some kind of unpatriotic ogre.
Mr. Obama told them: “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.”
The audience seemed to appreciate his comments. Mr. Obama was well-received.
But John McCain didn’t appreciate them. RACE CARD! RACE CARD! The McCain camp started bellowing, and it hasn’t stopped since. With great glee bursting through their feigned outrage, the campaign’s operatives and the candidate himself accused Senator Obama of introducing race into the campaign — playing the race card, as they put it, from the very bottom of the deck.
Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. So I guess we understand Mr. McCain’s motivation.
Nevertheless, it’s frustrating to watch John McCain calling out Barack Obama on race. Senator Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years. Senator McCain is the head of a party that has viciously exploited race for political gain for decades.
He’s obviously more than willing to continue that nauseating tradition.

Rachel MADDOW: Barack Obama Presumptuous?!

Experience - Not All It's Cracked Up to Be!

I have been thinking about the "Experience" factor in this year's Presidential campaign. McCain's campaign is touting his experience, and say that with this experience comes the "wisdom" to be Commander in Chief. But, why then, has Barack Obama been so right about so many of the issues concerning the war in Iraq? And, why doesn't John McCain know that Pakistan and Iraq do not have a common border, that Czechloslovakia hasn't been a country for 15 years, and the difference between the extremists and al-Qaeda, and on and on and on.
I spent 25 years in the education system, and as a beginning teacher looked up to those with years of experience as "wise." But it was much later (when I became one of the elders) that I realized my best teaching was done the first half of my career before the institution had formed the way I taught. It was always the younger staff that stayed in the building for hours after school ended, while the more experienced left 30 minutes after the students. Sometimes the connection with the changing world and the vitality, enthusiasm, dedication and creativity you have in earlier years is more important than years of service. Obama is vibrant, energized, connected, extremely intelligent, honest, and globally in tune. McCain is experienced . . . . in the "old ways" of how politics works.

Gramm Ouits McCain Campaign

This 2008 file photo shows Sen. John McCain with former Sen. Phil Gramm in March . (Photo credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

This Phil Gramm development plus the one of John McCain's fellow POW's in Vietnam, Colonel Bud Day, defending the war in Iraq, saying, "The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us,'' shows just how good McCain's judgement is in the company he keeps! In a phone call with reporters arranged by Republican Party of Florida, Colonel Bud Day added: "I don't intend to kneel and I don't advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn't advocate to anybody that we kneel.''

I suppose McCain will have to issue another statement saying that Colonel Bud Day doesn't speak for him, either. If you remember, Day, who lives in Pensacola, was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that smeared former Democratic nominee John Kerry's war record in 2004.


The following is an article from "The Fix" blog in the Washington Post by Chris Cillizza.

Add former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm's name to an ignominious list -- Samantha Power, Billy Shaheen, Geraldine Ferraro to name just a few -- of campaign surrogates forced to step aside after making an impolitic comment.
John McCain's campaign just released the following statement from Gramm:
"It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country. That kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country. To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as Co-Chair of the McCain Campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."
Gramm's resignation as co-chair comes nine days after Gramm told the Washington Times that the country was in a "mental recession" and went on to describe the United States as a "nation of whiners."
Democrats immediately seized on the comments as evidence that McCain and his campaign were out of touch with the average voter and weren't likely to let the issue go any time soon.
A few quick thoughts:
* Gramm's resignation is the inevitable byproduct of the modern political game best described by John Harris and Mark Halperin in "The Way to Win" as the "freak show." Once Gramm's comments made the cable television rounds for a few days, it was something close to inevitable that he would resign.
* It's a near-certainty that Democrats won't give up on the issue. The reality is that Gramm was one of McCain's closest confidantes when it came to the economy and simply because the former Texas Senator is no longer affiliated with the campaign does not mean Democrats won't remind voters of his comments in the fall.
* The position of Treasury Secretary in a McCain Administration is now WIDE open.
By Chris Cillizza July 18, 2008; 8:07 PM ET Category: Eye on 2008

Obama Ahead in the Polls

We have to remember that in the electoral vote count Obama is far ahead of McCain. As Chris Matthews and his guests reported, an 8 point lead in the Polls would be a landslide! With 3 months left, we have a lot of work to do to keep going in the right direction.

McCain Supports Our Troops? NOT

1. Voted Against Increased Funding forVeterans’ Health Care.
McCain voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004,
2005, 2006 and 2007. (Senate Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate Vote 55, 3/16/05; Senate Vote
41,3/14/06; Senate Vote 126,3/29/07)
2 Supported Outsourcing at Walter Reed.
3. McCain opposed an amendment to the FY 2007Department of Defense AppropriationsBill that would have prevented the outsourcing of 350 federal employees’ jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center—outsourcing that contributed to scandalous treatment of veterans
4. Opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care. McCain opposed an
amendment to provide an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation.(Senate Vote 63, 3/16/06)
5. Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs.
McCain opposed an amendment that would haveprevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (Senate Vote 315, 9/6/07)

WE RESPECT JOHN McCAIN’S SERVICE, When Will He Respect OURS?
Underfunding and understaffinghave created a crisisin veterans’ healthcare. More than 400,000
veterans are awaiting decisions on disability claims. Tens of thousands of veterans are waiting
months to see a doctor. We respect John McCain’s service to our country, but when given the opportunity to address this crisis, he has failed America’s veterans—past, present and
future. (FederalTimes.com,)
Paid for by the AFL-CIO PA

McCainocrats?

I am so tired of those comments from some Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain and wait four years for Hillary! Either these are Republican trolls trying to instigate something, or these people are one sandwich short of a picnic! Vote for McCain? They would do that to our country? There are so many crucial issues in this election, we cannot vote Republican just because the candidate we wanted did not become the nominee for our party. I know if it were reversed, if Hillary had won, I would have graciously turned my support to her. Obama and Clinton are so closely aligned on the issues, and that's what should matter. So many Barack supporters, and I am one of them, are donating money to help Hillary pay her debt . . . and I know more would do so if there were less of these comments.