As we know it's Bob Shieffer's turn to host a Presidential debate. This is the last one and with McCain trailing in the polls it could get very Ayery.

The veteran "Face the Nation" host won't telegraph what he will ask. But he said he will be seeking more details about their potential presidencies than have been evident so far.

Even though McCain has said he will bring up Ayers, if McCain changes his mind at the last minute because his negative ads have been dragging him down, will Shieffer take it upon himself to bring it up? Remember when Bernard Shaw did the work of Lee "The Boogie Man" Atwater for him by opening the debate with this horrendous question based on a hate ad?

“Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for her killer?”

Continue reading »

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

What is it about McCain ignoring the actual questions and answering questions never asked?  And of course, Bush golfing buddy Bob Schieffer never points out that he didn't actually answer question about why there are so few African-Americans in the Republican Party and how that might affect the long term outlook on his party but lets him instead go on a five minute, rambling non-sequitur about education vouchers. 

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about the composition of the...of the convention. There were 36 African American delegates out of 2300 plus delegates there. How can you survive as a party if you become just the party of white people?

McCAIN: We can't. We can't. I saw a bit of information the other day that by, I forgot, I think...don't hold me to it, 2042 or something like that, white Americans will be in the minority in the population of this country. We can't. We've got to reach out; we gotta do a better job. We have to have the Hispanic as well as the African American voters. I've traveled all over this country. I've been to places where there were literally no Republican votes. I have to convince them I'll be the president of everybody. And the Republican party has a job to do. And frankly, it's a job that also spills over into other issues. You've seen the generic ballot difference that we have...[..]

SCHIEFFER: So what are you going to do about that?

McCAIN: Oh, education, economy, small business, create jobs....education, as I mentioned, civil rights issue of this century. Now everyone has equal access to a school. But what's the point of access to a failed school, or a failing school? We've got to give them more choice, more opportunity, all Americans. Because we know in low income America, the schools are failing, with the exception of NYC, now New Orleans and some others. But so, a quality education is really the dream of every parent. As you know in Washington DC, they have an experimental voucher system. Huge number of parents want to take advantage of that, thousands more than they have room for. So we got to provide the kinds of opportunities in education, one of the keys to it, help for small businesses, and get the economy back on its feet, don't raise the taxes, get it going again. Americans are hurting in a way that they have not hurt for a long time. I would probably argue to you that the 65 appearances - I hate to keep bringing that up - that we probably--you and I-never had a conversation when our economy was in greater difficulty than it is today.

Okay, McSame...obviously continuing Bush's policies will change the economy and the minorities' outlook on the GOP how?  Here's a helpful hint from someone who hopes you never step foot in the Oval Office:  if you really want to attract minorities to the GOP, you have to address these issues: (h/t Don Rumsfeld hater in the comments)

Continue reading »

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Who is the last person on the planet that Barack Obama should take advice from?  Naturally, the person that Bob Schieffer asks on Face the Nation, Turd Blossom himself, Karl Rove.  Seriously, this guy is an advisor for the McCain campaign, he's the architect of one of the nastiest and most partisan campaigns in the history of the country and for some reason, Schieffer thinks it's legitimate to ask him his thoughts on Obama's VP pick.  Why?

Rove tries to spin this that if Obama selects a governor like Kaine from a red state, it's a political choice, rather than a presidential one, because all Obama is focused on is the electoral votes.  Okay.  Because Cheney was a real presidential choice...oh wait, Bush didn't make the choice.  Cheney chose himself. That's thinking big and broad.

What cracks me up the most is Karl Rove's attempt to diminish Kaine as a VP candidate:

I didn't say I thought he ought to, I said he probably would pick a Red State Democrat, because I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice. He's going to view this through a prism of a candidate, not through the prism of President. That is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks on the margin will help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities as President. Well, with all due respect again to Gov. Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able but undistinguished; I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done.

And this differs from GWB's tenure as Governor of Texas how?  Oh that's right, the Governor of Virginia actually works more than the constitutionally weak Governor of Texas.  And how did GWB distinguish himself, other than putting more people to death than all the rest of the states combined?  By failing at every other business he started. 

Talk about appealing to the low information voter.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Actually, it's hard to think of anything that the talking heads inside the Beltway Bubble think would hurt John McCain's chances.  But this is so slippery and the terminology so vague that it's troublesome to see the potential to sway a lot of low information voters.   With the news that we are considering drawing down forces in Iraq, beginning in September (reg. req'd), Roger Simon of The Politico, who never met a Republican for whom he wouldn't apologize, insists that this "October Surprise" will help John McCain.

SIMON: Yeah. It may be an October surprise in July. I think anything that signals that the war in Iraq is generally winding down would be good news for John McCain. He has always said that he wants to leave Iraq, too, but he wants to leave it with victory and honor. And if a drawdown of troops is seen to be militarily justified because we're winning, because the surge is working, and not political trickery because Republicans need it for the fall elections, then that is likely to be effective. 

So how many caveats did you count?  There's a lot of stars that have to line up just so to make that work, but let's focus on the purposeful vagueness and empty rhetoric. 

McCain has ALWAYS said that he wants to leave Iraq? Does anyone ever explain how you can leave an occupation (remember, we "won" the war back in 2003) with "victory"?  Is there any honor to that? 

'The surge is working' meme is working my last nerve as well.  Yes, violence is down within Baghdad (where the majority of those escalation-designated troops were sent), but outside of that area, in Kirkuk, Diyala, Mosul and Fallujah?  Not so much. And is it considered a "win" when we're talking about 4.5 million Iraqi refugees?

What happens if the "drawdown" (which is Beltway speak for returning to pre-surge levels) is NOT militarily justified but politically justified?  Is it still a "drawdown" if we're simply moving them to Afghanistan where violence and attacks has jumped lately?  Will it still help McCain when the number of troop deaths in Afghanistan increase even more, like today's attack in Kabul?

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

  While making the case yesterday on "Face the Nation" about how John McCain has changed his position on far more issues than Barack Obama, John Kerry was accused by Bob Scheiffer of "challenging John McCain's integrity."

Download | play   Download | play  

You see, when Republicans relentlessly attack a Democrat's military service record and position on the issues, it's acceptable, even promoted by the librul media. When a Democrat does the same thing, they are guilty of disrespecting the entire military and questioning a hero's integrity. There in a nutshell is the M.O. of McCain's Media™.

Transcript below:

Continue reading »

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

McSame's BFF Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face The Nation to talk up McCain and his plan for Iraq, using those same old tired Republican talking points, which as we all know, are less than factually-based:

SCHIEFFER: That of course begs the question if he's ready to be president. Do you believe that Barack Obama is not ready to be president?

LIEBERMAN: Let me put it affirmatively, which is what I really mean, because ultimately, we rarely make a choice between perfect and terrible. John McCain is more ready to be President, on foreign and domestic policy, because of his extraordinary experience. And it's good experience. It's experience where he's had the guts to do what's right for his country, including in Iraq, where he opposed the administration's policy for a long time. The surge was implemented by President Bush, it's now working. Senator Obama, unfortunately, like a lot of the Democratic leadership, continues to take a position that we ought to withdraw, which to me is "retreat, accept defeat" even though the new policy is working. I hope that Barack Obama goes to Iraq and frankly, I hope he changes his position, because if we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today, Iran and al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world. Instead, we have a country that's defending itself, that's growing economically, where there's been genuine political reconciliation and where Iran and al Qaeda are on the run. And that's the way it ought to be.

SCHIEFFER: You're saying if we had done a drawdown, as Senator Obama had suggested, that Iran would now be in control of Iraq?

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, and here's what I mean: And it's not just Sen. Obama, it's generally the leadership of the Democratic Party. On this issue, I respectfully but deeply disagreed. Because, they were saying a year ago, two years ago, Iraq was lost. They were saying...they were proposing amendments that would have ordered our withdrawal, a retreat of our forces, to begin and end rather rapidly. If that had happened, in Iraq today, there wouldn't be an Iraqi government, there'd be chaos, there'd probably be genocide, definitely civil war. And the main beneficiaries of that would be Iran and al Qaeda. Instead, al Qaeda is on the run, and on the verge of a terrible defeat, one of our most significant victories over them since 9/11, maybe the most significant. Iran is being pushed back. And just a couple of weeks ago, Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq went to Tehran and Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Khamenei pleaded with Maliki, "don't enter into a long term strategic agreement with America," and he said, "sorry, folks, I want to have good neighborly relations with you, but the Americans are our friends. We appreciate what they've done for us and we're sticking with them."

You know what they say, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.   But I have to hold up this lovely little soundbyte as the MOST egregious:

(The Democratic leadership in Congress) were proposing amendments that would have ordered our withdrawal, a retreat of our forces, to begin and end rather rapidly. If that had happened, in Iraq today, there wouldn't be an Iraqi government, there'd be chaos, there'd probably be genocide, definitely civil war 

Reality to Lieberman:  There IS chaos, there IS genocide and what the hell do you think the combat is but a civil war?