Today’s Meet The Press interview with John McCain provided an interesting insight into McCain’s own lack of judgement and contradictions. Using the MTP clip and past videos I’d like to encourage someone with good editing skills to put together the following ad.

Voice over:

Experience is no substitute for judgement. John McCain wants you to believe he has both, but his own actions tell another story.

Cut to short clip of McCain expressing confidence in Sarah Palin.

Voice over:

McCain’s judgement places Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Yet McCain shelters her from direct reporter questions.  As a result, the American people only get a short glimpse into her thoughts on critical maters like National Security.

Cut to video of Sarah's response to question in the crowd found at the 18 to 27 second mark in the MTP - youtube link (superimpose date)

Voice over:

"The very next day, when asked about his running mate’s comments Senator McCain responded with…"

Cut to the 1 minute, 19 second mark of MTP - youtube clip (superimpose date):

"...but to announce you're going to attack another country is not a mature way to address the issue.."

Cut to edited McCain campaign clip (superimpose "Campaign Stop 2008"):

"When do we send them an air-mail message to Taran"… jump to McCain's response, "That old, ah, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran"

Cut to Bush- Correspondents Dinner speech using just the portions with Bush in view – superimpose label "2004 Correspondence Dinner":

"Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere" *chuckle, chuckle* "Nope, no weapons over there" *chuckle, chuckle* "maybe under here"

Slow fade to black with laughter in background and bring in to last part of McCain clip:

"That old, ah, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran… Bomb, bomb, bomb. Anyway, ahhh…"

Fade again to black and back to MTP clip:

"...but to announce you're going to attack another country is not a mature way to address the issue…"

Voice over:

"In the lead up to the Bush, McCain war in Iraq, Barack Obama consistently voiced his opposition.

This election is about Judgement.

Barack Obama has demonstrated sound judgement and clear leadership from the start."

Barack Obama:

"I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message."

and there’s no one willing to report the truth, is it still lipstick?

Kind of mixed it up here, but you know what I mean.

In the spirit of John McCain campaign’s lack of truthyness, let’s play a little game called the

McMixedMetaphor

Here are a few starters:

(Okay.  I know.  These aren’t true metaphors like troop surge or economic meltdown.  So play now, sue me later.)

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya.  (This one didn’t need any tweaks!)

Do these facts make my LIES look fat?

Once a McCain, always a cheater

MSM:  McMain Stream McMedia

and there’s no one willing to report the truth, is it still lipstick?

Kind of mixed it up here, but you know what I mean.

In the spirit of the McCain campaign’s lack of truthyness, let’s play a little game called the:

McMixedMetaphor

Here are a few starters:

(Okay.  I know.  These aren’t real metaphors, like troop surge or economic meltdown.  So what.  Play now, sue me later.)

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya.  (This one didn’t need any tweaks!)

Do these facts make my LIES look fat?

Once a McCain, always a cheater.

MSM:  McMain Stream McMedia

Did anyone just see the (at about 4:45 EST) CNN presentation of a McCain stump speech in split screen while showing his positions on issue to the left?

The text indicated an opposition to abortion (of course), but with EXCEPTION in cases of incest or rape.

Did I read that right?

If so, isn’t that totally against the written Republican platform and Palin’s repeatedly stated position?

Is CNN deliberately misstating McCain’s position attempting to put him more to the center than he is really or is it that they do not know how to do real reporting?

Kinda looses it's punch in the second telling...  Anyway

New yard signs have been spotted going up around town. They seem to coincide with bank foreclosure signs at the [former] home next door.

The signs are reminiscent of Bush's, no WMDs here joke at the DC Press Club.

I've personally spotted this one:

Nope, No McHouse Here

A good friend spotted this:

Not a McCain House

New yard signs have been spotted going up around town.  They seem to coincide with bank forclosure signs next door.

The signs are reminicent of Bush's <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm"> no WMD joke</a> at the DC Press Club event.

I've personally spotted this one:

<blockquote>Nope, No McCain House Here</blockquote>

A good friend has seen:
<blockquote>Not a McCain House</blockquote>

I just read a post on C&L regarding McCain's income, who's rich dilemma. 

The very first response in the C&L post simply labeled McCain as "Daddy War Bucks".

Well, given the recent posts here on TPM Cafe regarding the search for a pithy label for McCain, I'd like to submit:
 
Grandpa War Bucks

Seems that would hit on many levels.  It would drive home the point of McCain, if elected, being the oldest President at time of inauguration.  It helps emphasize his continuous war footing.  And certainly draws the distinction between the vast majority of Americans and McCain's if you make less than $5 Million a year you’re not rich delusion.

It also plays well on the continuing theme of his lobbyists influence, specifically on the Georgia front.

What are you thought?

Title subtext: Can a precipitated crisis be used for good?

I was shocked while watching <a herf="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/13/fzgps.01.html">CNN’s GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE, hosted by Fareed Zakaria, today.</a> Please read the full text at CNN’s site.

The show’s introduction tantalized me with the Barack Obama interview, then added this:
<blockquote>And later, if <b>they're scared,</b> you should be, too. </blockquote>

After airing the interview with Barack Obama, Fareed led into his next segment with:
<blockquote>ZAKARIA: Oil and food prices are sky-high, world markets are down, and the American economy seems to be slinking into a long slump. <b>Just how scared should we be?</b> </blockquote>

There was give and take between Zakaria and his panel of three with this midway through;
<blockquote>ZAKARIA: So, you're <b>more scared</b> in a way than he is.</blockquote>

One of the guests, <a herf="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman">Paul Krugman</a>, professor of economics and columnist for the NY Times, had this to say at the end,
<blockquote>And we came out of the Great Depression with Social Security. We came out of the Great Depression with the Trade Agreements Program, which paved the way for the global economy of later generations.

We can come out of this crisis, actually, with an enhanced case, enhanced prospects for health care reform, with an enhanced prospect for a rational energy policy, which could also slide into a climate change policy.

I mean, what we really want is, we want the next president to say, "We have all these big problems. Some of them are short term, but they're wrapped into a long term. And here are the things we can do to fix them."

And we come out in 2013 with a much better society, a much better thing -- partly, you know, <b>exploiting the crisis, <I>exploiting</I> the crisis to do the right things.</b></blockquote>

It was at that moment that I thought of Naomi Klien’s book The Shock Doctrine and "disaster capitalism".

Has this all been a set up?  Admittedly I need to take off my tinfoil hat after that thought, but are we moving to the brink of economic collapse, driven by a war machine, purposeful cronyism and systematic dismantling of oversight sucking out our economic strength, just to precipitate a decision?

A decision between Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, functional public schools, safe food and civil liberties through government that works versus privatization of everything, no regulations, corporate rule.  Seems to me the Republican mantra of big government can’t work is wrong.

I think it is only a broken government that can’t work.

Krugman, according to the linked Wikipedia citation, is progressive so one would presume he is not just aiding the commentary setting things up for a "crisis" move closer to a Fascist state.  On the contrary, his comments regarding functional Trade Agreements and Social Security along with better healthcare and energy policies would indicate otherwise.

I wonder why the repeated <b>"they're scared", "how scared" and "more scared"</b> references by Zakaria?  Who’s writing his material?

Well, thank goodness the segment concluded with,
<blockquote> ZAKARIA: We've had a somewhat gloomy discussion, but on that optimistic note, we're going to have to end.</blockquote>

How we came to be in the sorry state we are in is of critical importance.  What we do now to fix this is more so.

More of the McSame is not going to work.

Barack can. Yes We Can.

So, I just got home from a long day and turned on my cable TV. It's just about 6 PM here in the Denver area and Olberman's about to start, so of course I switch to MS-NBC and see this:

MS-NBC IS NOW ON OUR DIGITAL CABLE LINEUP.

PLEASE CONTACT 1-800-COMCAST TO UPGRADE TODAY.

I quickly check to see if Foux and friend, or CNN were moved. Nope.  Just Keith... Oh, and CSPAN2.

Who made the brilliant decision to select MS-NBC and CSPAN2 for "up-grade"?  MS-NBC (and CSPAN) being the only MSM news that has any semblance of true balanced reporting.

Is free speech?  Why no, but it is capitalism at its best!  How do you stifle descent? Make people pay for it!!!

Guess Keith must be getting to someone.

After I make some calls, email and postings regarding this I guess I'll have to call Comcast to CANCEL MY CABLE, PHONE, AND INTERNET.

Funny, my attempts to get through to them keeps getting cut off. The last time there was a recording stating, due to the high volume of calls they couldn't connect me (or something close) and ended nicely with "Thanks for choosing Comcast." Well not for long.

Damn, I'll hate the hasle of switching to DSL.

During the Thursday afternoon session (5/23/07) of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) hearing on the US Attorneys' firing, Monica Goodling made a particularly interesting comment.

Of course there are so many points of interest in Goodling's testimony, but what I perceive to be one small "slip" may have gone unnoticed.

My curiosity was tweaked during Representative Robert Wexler’s (D - FL) portion. There was an exchange of questions and answers regarding the March 5th meeting called by the WH Counsel’s office. I think the attention was on the fact that Karl Rove was in attendance.

Using CSPAN's recorded version of the afternoon session you can see that at about the 9 minute, 30 second mark Wexler asked;

Wexler: "Was there any discussion about the termination of the prosecutors?"

Goodling: "Um, I remember at one point there was a reference to when, um, to when Tim Griffen's, ah, name was submitted to the President for approval and I, and I checked my book and said it was June. I think that was the only comment I made in the meeting... and I think that the only reference to a specific individual I remember in the meeting. ..."

What is of interest to me is Monica's admission of keeping a "book" which tracked the date/s when a name was submitted to the President.  What is also interesting is the ease in which she recalled / stated this fact of checking her "book" with no ambiguity.

This single comment raises many questions:

• Did she mean to speak about a book that tracked the dates "names were submitted to the President for approval?"
• Exactly how did she know when a name was submitted TO THE PRESIDENT?  By what method did she come by these facts: email, verbally, during a meeting.  And by whom did she get notified?  Seems ironic that she's in a meeting with WH Counsel and she is the one correcting the dates!!!????  Curious, no?
• In what document dump can we find this "book"?
• Did she previously disclose the existence of such a "book" to the HJC?
• Where is this book today?
• Does the HJC have possession?
• If the book is under DOJ "control" did the DOJ disclose the fact that they have it and it's relevance to Congress' request for ALL relevant documents.
• What other information related to this investigation is in the book?

Is there anything significant here or is this already known? It’s hard to keep track.

Go take a look and listen your self at C-SPAN's web site.  Under RECENT PROGRAMS you'll see: 

House Judiciary Full Cmte. Hearing on the U.S. Attorneys Investigation - PM Session <javascript:playClip(clip07)>