As independent as Bush is truthful

If Mccain is so independent, how come I can't tell where he ends and Bush begins?

McCain independent-minded maverick or nothing

McCain used to be independent minded; however, in the last several years (after being spanked by the Bush lies in the Carolina primary), he learned his lesson or how to get ahead in the Republican party. Now he's pandering to this one and that one. He's in the words of Kornblut "nothing." I live in AZ, have played with the McCain family on Turtle Island, and could not be more disappointed!

But wait!

"is nothing if not an independent-minded maverick"

That means he's nothing, right?

Correct!

He is nothing.

[link to www.youtube.com]

By that standard...

The President of the Flat-Earth Society is an "independent-minded maverick"

He is the Dorian Gray of politics.

There is a photo in his attic that shows the tortured face of truth while the media morons thoughtlessly broadcast the false face the devil gave him, assigning charismatic western terms: "maverick," "independent." This is one of the guys who sold out the Bill of Rights within the last couple of months before the election and proclaimed it good. It's okay, though, he was against it before he was for it, which is permitted by the media's scriptwriters if you are Republican. The talking heads only know what is on their cue cards and don't see that McCain is the worst of the capitulators.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!

McCain has his head so far up the RNC/Neo-Con/Evangelical/Wing nut posterior that his grey hair has turned a pungent brown, and he’s blowing green smoke rings on Meet The Press!

McCain has so many strings attached that the rest of us call it a noose around our kneck!!

McCain owes more favors than pimp on judgement day, and we're the government is his John!!

McCain is so dirtied by his path to the White House they’ll have to start calling it the Out House if he were ever elected.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Not the first, not the last

Politics can certainly be played, especially when ramping up to be President. But the man's been on the receiving end of politicians running wars. I find it far more than far fetched that McCain would play politics with the men and women in the armed forces with whom he shares a special bond. It's not just his bond, it's a family legacy. McCains have made the US the place it is, honorably fighting battles and wars - and winning them. McCain's father ok'd bombing runs mere neighborhoods away from where his son was held as a POW. Not sure that was the easiest decision to make, nor the most practical as a father. Now McCain sits poised to run for President and he's offered his path not just for the aftermath of war in Iraq, but the way ahead for the U.S. The choices we now have are either clean up our mess with an Iraqi government stable and sustainable, or leave it, let the region deteriorate and foster greater hatred for us. We either win the peace now or fight another war against a bitter, vengeful enemy of our own creation in the next decade.

But telegraph,

you're offering similar options to the Bush administrations-the simplified "clean up our mess and put in a good govt" and "win the peace".

These are goals, not plans, and for all the rightys criticism of the Dems lack of a plan, the Repubs have been at the wheel for quite a while now and I still have not heard a plan from them.

Among other things that don't count as a plan;

Victory

Defeating terrorism

staying the course

addapting to win

killing more actual people on both sides to save hypothetical future people

What do you mean "another war?"

Your words are lofty but false: there's no precedent for this, no prior similar experience.

Vietnam did not turn against us, they're now our friends. So what "war" are you talking about?

The Right uses Vietnam as some kind of object lesson, but they refuse to note that that "foe" was a cohesive force, and things have turned out alright. If only Iraq were as 'together' as the NVA...

McCain's ploy will backfire, though, because no one in the future's going to say 'if only we sent more trips there!"

troops not 'trips'

Although in McCain-land it might turn out to be the same thing.

False dichotomy

Those are NOT the only two options. Nor does the one you cite make the other you cite inevitable. McCain is my Senator. He is far too conservative for me and that was before the recent swing to the right. I will give him credit for integrity. He will when he feels strongly about something disagree with this administration before folding like a triple A map. He wont get my vote thats for sure but he I have some respect for the guy.

So McCain is sincere?

That's an even scarier possibility. If he's sincere in wanting to "fix the mess" that is Iraq, how can he possibly believe that sending a token number (20,000 troops) to Baghdad will be a solution? There isn't a single military commander in Iraq or here who believes that this small an increase (and it necessarily would be a temporary increase, give how thinly the US military is stretched) would have any effect. So he's not insincere. He's a fool.

Independent from whom or what?

How does this so-called journalist come to this rather bizarre conclusion! McCain was against Falwell, and now he is for Falwell, because he needs Falwell sponsored voters. He was tarred and feathered by Bush in the 2000 elections. Now he is a great supporter of Bush' policies. He did not even have the guts to defend Murtha and Kerry when they were swiftboated, or Max Cleland for that matter. McCain wants to win the presidency, and will do and say anything to win. Independent...that's a laugh or Joke!

Neocon to the Core...

What a lot of nonsense. McCain has been the neocon "next big thing" since 2000. Elect him and we'll never be through fighting Middle East wars.

erikvilius.blogspot. com formerly "anti-war conservative"

Come on

This may be inaccurate, but "failing to mention" the liberal or left view on what McCain's possible motivations might be does not constitute an instance of right-wing media bias. This is along the line of Nedra Pickler inserting opinions into wire stories with the words "failed to mention". Please stick to your mission, you're doing a good job and providing an indispensable service.

How's this for bias?

Some people propose silly ideas and are called silly. St. McCain proposes silly ideas (and what can be sillier than thinking another 20k troops sent to Baghdad are going to improve the situation in Iraq?) and gets called a "maverick."

And, aside from the question of whether Ann Kornblut is "biased", one of the functions of Media Matters is to track the media's use of right-wing-friendly "scripts" that Washington reporters love to repeat (Al Gore is a "serial exaggerator", Hilary Clinton is "calculating", McCain is a "maverick").

Given how powerful these scripts are in influencing elections, it seems to me the least we can do is keep a record of how and when they're used.

Surprise, Surprise: Anne Kornblut is a shill

This is the "reporter" the NY Times had covering Lieberman-Lamont, the same one who put an outright lie in the paper in service of Lieberman, i.e. that he "never uttered stay the course." Readers ganged up on the Times and they issued a rare front page correction but here is Kornblut still being dishonest so the Times editors must never have made a fuss with her.

She also didn't report ANYTHING about Lieberman's $387,000 "petty cash" disbursements in the 12 days before the primary. He is a national figure and if he gets away with it, he'll have blown a hole in campaign finance law so wide that the law will be meaningless. But no reporting from the NY Times (or the Washington Post).