It's the honesty.  The good 'ol Straight Talk Express.  Like when, during the third debate, he questioned Joe Biden's foreign policy credential because Biden voted against the first Iraq war.  God damned right.  We all know the first Iraq war was necessary, as McCain pointed out, for the moral defense of poor Kuwait's . . .

. . . oil reserves.  Now, some people will point out that McCain was and is wrong about the second Iraq war, but that hardly matters since, as McCain says over and over, the Surge has been a huge success . . .

. . .at recovering some ground we've lost over the last few years.  Never mind that it's a Red Herring intended to distract us from the fact that we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.  McCain is right, we need to be in Iraq now, because of all the Terrorists . . .

. . .that were not there before we invaded.  But  that is hardly the point.  They are there now, and we must defeat them.  Iraq is the central battleground in the war on Terror, everyone agrees about that . . .

. . . except for all the people who don't, who say the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central battle ground.  Like the people who are leading the war in Afghanistan.  But what do they know.  McCain said the battle for Afghanistan is over, and he should know . . .

. . . he was a POW, you know . . .

Why has no one called McCain out on his incessant use of the phrase "redistribution of wealth"?  Taking from the rich to give to the poor?  For the last 28 years we've lived in a redistribution system that takes from the poor and middle class and gives to the rich.  Isn't that what "trickle-down" economics is all about?  Isn't that what deregulation has accomplished -- American tax payers footing the bill for failed corporations, many of whom already received subsidies?  Barack needs to turn this around on the RNC, remind voters exactly which direction funds have been flowing, and the mess it has caused.

First Sarah Palin, and now John McCain, have stated that they are federalists, and both have tied that to increased State's Rights.  I say federalist, small "f", rather than Federalist, capital "F", for the obvious reason that the Federalist party has been defunct since the first half of the 19th Century.  Regardless, "federalist" has only one connotation that I'm aware of, the principles of the Federalist Party, the belief in a strong central government, as opposed to State's Rights.  Now, are they both that clueless?

Or is this the start of something new?  In the past, all new parties, or replacement parties as the case may be, started with high-profile politicians using the Word to describe themselves first - the Party came later.