McCain’s negative campaigning, Mark Fiore animation

This video from the USA says about itself:

McCains Economic Plan: ‘Everyone Marry A Beer Heiress’

McCain pointed to his personal success in marrying a wealthy beer heiress to prove how the plan could benefit every American.

There is a new Mark Fiore animation on the Internet.

It is about United States Republican presidential candidate John McCain‘s negative campaigning: McCain avoids talking about the economic crisis as he does not know much about economics. Instead, he thinks personal attacks on Obama are his only chance of winning.

McCain-Palin campaign’s attacks on Obama: a whiff of fascism: here.

11 thoughts on “McCain’s negative campaigning, Mark Fiore animation

  1. Posted by: “Zoltan Abraham” zsazle
    Thu Oct 9, 2008 8:26 am (PDT)

    Video Roundup – Saturday, October 8

    The Obama campaign keeps the focus on the economy:

    McCain’s veteran problem continues. You might have heard that McCain was one a POW. (I think I heard that somewhere before.) What you might not have heard is that Mr. I-Was-a-Prisoner-of-War has consistently voted against funding for veterans’ programs. Now the veterans are fighting back.
    (The first ad goes after Liddy Dole of North Carolina. The second one targets John McCain.)

    Speaking of being a POW, McCain addressed his audience at a rally in Pennsylvania as “my fellow prisoners.”

    Just imagine if a Democratic candidate had made a comment like that. What would the “liberal media” do with it?

    Of course, many of us may have felt at times, in the last eight years, that we are prisoners of the illegitimate Bush Administration. McCain has been deliberately campaigning against Bush (even though he has voted with him 95% of the time), but could it be that he considers all of us prisoners of W?… POW… Prisoner of W… I get it! 🙂

    Or perhaps he is switching his campaign theme song to the Hotel California? (“We are all just prisoners here, of our own device…”) Who knows?

    (Note: Credit goes to a Daily Kos user, whose handle I forget, for coming up with the new definition of POW.)

    McCain and Obama shake hands right after the second debate. Then they go around the room shaking hands with the viewers (who magically come to life, after their statuesque presence the whole evening). Obama and McCain meet again on the floor. Obama extends his hand, and McCain appears to refuse it.

    We’ve been hearing from Cindy McCain more and more. Somehow I doubt that she will connect well with the general public. On Tuesday, she accumsed Obama of casting a vote not to fund her son, who is serving in the military.

    The reality of the vote has been explained several times by Obama. The Senate was considering two military funding bills. One had a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The other one did not have a time line. Obama voted against the bill that did not have a timeline. McCain voted against the bill that did have a timeline.

    If the McCain camp claims that Obama voted against the troops, then so did John McCain. So if Cindy claims that Obama voted not to fund her son, then John McCain also voted not to fund her son. It’s as simple as that.

    Truth, as they say, is the first casualty of war. It would appear that truth has also been the first casualty of the McCain campaign.

    What’s the difference between a McCain/Palin rally and a KKK gathering? Ok, I will not say “lipstick.” But the sheer degree of hatred incited by McCain and Palin during their rallies is simply frightening. Follow the link below to get a firsthand look at what some McCain supporters are saying in Ohio:

    At one rally, as McCain was repeating his customary lies about Obama’s tax plan, a supporter shouted “Off with his head!” Once again, McCain did not contradict the remark.
    (Not a video.)

    As McCain continues his scortched earth approach of going all negative, all the time, we can expect more and more hatred to be unleashed, for one more month. If Obama gets elected, as seems likely right now, our nation will still have to deal with the fact that millions of Americans will have been whipped into a frenzy of hatred by McCain’s vicious campaign.

    And if Obama does not win, the forces of hatred you see at work in McCain’s campaign will be in control of our nation for at least four years. I shudder to think what that would mean for all of us.

    But let’s not dwell on such gloomy thoughts. Let us, instead, turn our eyes to the sky. During the second presidential debate, John McCain alleged twice that Barack Obama supported spending $3 million on an overhead projector. The image he no doubt meant to evoke is that of a school projector, which could hardly cost anywhere near $3 million.

    The reality, however, is that Obama was supporting a state-of-the-art planitarium, whose goal is to teach children and adults alike about science. Check out this article, which was a couple of cool clips:

    I, for one, am very proud of Obama for helping to provide for our children this wonderful opportunity to learn about science! At the same time, McCain’s mockery of funding for the planetarium should come as no surprise. George Bush (fully supported by John McCain) has been fighting a veritable war on science ever since the Supreme Court gave him the keys to the White House.

    Here is McCain describing as “evil” the allocation of $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana.

    I say, let’s study bears. We need to study the world around us. We can compensate for that $3 million by, say, making three fewer Cruise Missles, each of which costs about $1,000,000.

    Speaking of the world around us, ABC is refusing to air an ad urging us to switch to green energy:

    Sarah Palin has been complaining about media filters. She wants to speak to the American people directly. Well, Newsweek has decided to publish a cover of Palin that is very much unfiltered. Her picture does not have the customary retouching to remove little blemishes here and there. The right-wing is, predictably, outraged. They would have wanted the picture doctored to make her look better. But didn’t Palin want such media filters removed? I am confused!

    Speaking of not understanding, Obama admits during the second debate that he doesn’t understand… He doesn’t understand the failed policies of the Bush administration (all of them supported by John McCain):

    What can I say? Michelle Obama is cool. I heart Michelle Obama.

    The Emperor Worship Channel (a.k.a. Fox “News”) is caught creating its own alternative reality again. Watch GOP spinmeister Frank Luntz declare that 7 out of 30 is 50%.

    Note: Even if half of them had agreed, as Luntz claims, that would still be a tie, not a victory for McCain.

    The above clip reminds me of a similar alternative reality moment from the Emperor Worship Channel:

    When Palin went to LA to take home some bacon for McCain, the California Democratic Party was ready to weclome her. From the article below:

    “The California Democratic Party came up with a brilliant way to ‘welcome’ Sarah Palin to her rally in LA on Saturday. They rented a giant electronic billboard across the street from the rally, and posted questions for Palin submitted via text message!”
    (Slideshow of questions at the link.)

    Perhaps not all the questions were as good as they could have been, but this was an ingenius way of standing up to Spiteful Sarah.

    Biden on fire:
    (33 minutes, but well worth it!)

    Final chuckle:
    Last night we saw what the candidates would be if they were airplanes. The night before, we saw them as trains. Tonight, we can see them as Simpson characters.

    McCain – Palin
    Unstable – Unable
    Unfit to lead!


  2. 2.
    ACORN are Good People
    Posted by: “bigraccoon” redwoodsaurus
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:37 pm (PDT)
    ACORN are Good People

    How can McCain and Palin call ACORN a terrorist organization?

    Back to top
    Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
    Messages in this topic (1)

    Ayers = Keating? Media falsely balance Obama, McCain attacks
    Posted by: “razldazl”
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:47 pm (PDT)

    *Media Advisory*
    *Ayers = Keating?*
    *Media falsely balance Obama, McCain attacks*

    After the *New York Times* (10/4/08
    ) devoted over 2,000 words to a front-page story assessing the “connection” between Barack Obama and former Weather Underground member William Ayers, it was no surprise that the John McCain/Sarah Palin campaign would seize the opportunity to try to re-inject the Ayers/Obama “link”–a popular topic among right-wing pundits like Sean Hannity–into the campaign.

    In general, centrist pundits looked askance (e.g., *NBC News Today* show, 10/7/08) at the McCain camp’s undisguised attempt to change the subject from the economy to Ayers (*Washington Post*, 10/4/08 ). But many in the media bent over backwards to suggest an equivalence between the Ayers exaggerations advanced by McCain/Palin and the Obama campaign’s decision to remind voters of McCain’s status as one of the Keating Five–five U.S. senators who received large campaign contributions from savings and loan executive Charles Keating, then later intervened in federal efforts to investigate what turned out to be Keating’s criminal activities.

    The two stories are not at all similar. Obama has had passing contacts with Ayers over the years, mostly via the board of a small non-profit; Obama once held a fundraiser in Ayers’ house. (Ayers, who helped carry out a handful of nonlethal bombings in protest against the Vietnam War, is an academic in Chicago and well known in education policy circles. Federal charges against him in connection with the bombings were dropped in the 1970s.) The *New York Times* story that launched Ayers back into the media spotlight found that “the two men do not appear to have been close.”

    Why would the *Times* devote so much space to a non-story? The article offered one clue: “Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama…. Conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers.” Unsurprisingly, the same day the *Times* story was published, Palin began citing it to inaccurately accuse Obama of “palling around with terrorists” (**, 10/4/08

    Apparently in response to that, the Obama campaign released an online video
    about McCain’s role in the Keating scandal. While no two financial crises are exactly alike, the current financial meltdown and the S&L debacle were both arguably the results of deregulation; it is not much of a stretch by conventional campaign standards to point out during a major financial crisis that your opponent played a prominent role in the last major financial crisis.

    But many in the press decided that the campaigns were behaving equally poorly. “Campaigns Shift to Attack Mode on Eve of Debate,” read a *New York Times* headline (10/7/08
    ), with reporter Adam Nagourney noting that while both candidates had pledged to run honorable campaigns, McCain had decided to question “Obama’s character, background and leadership,” and that “Obama’s campaign signaled that it would respond in kind.”

    A *USA Today* editorial, headlined “Candidates Pursue Trivia While the Economy Burns” (10/7/08
    ), lamented that the candidates were dredging up “associations and scandals so old that most voters don’t even know what they’re talking about without a historical playbook.” The paper faulted McCain’s invocation of Ayers, then trained its criticism on Obama: “The Obama campaign’s retort? To reply in kind.”

    In the *Wall Street Journal*, Gerald Seib wrote (10/7/08) that “any campaign attacks based on character will rapidly become a two-way mudfest. Indeed, they already have.” On *CNN*’s *American Morning*, reporter John Roberts declared (10/6/08): “And, of course, the Obama campaign trying to fire back in kind reminding people that John McCain was a member of the Keating Five a couple of decades ago. So, definitely going downhill on both sides here.”

    On the *PBS* *NewsHour With Jim Lehrer*, *Time* magazine’s Karen Tumulty (10/6/08) echoed some of the conventional pundit wisdom, wondering if Obama might “overplay this…. If Obama responds too much in kind, it’s almost like both campaigns have over-learned the lessons of the Swift Boat Veterans from four years ago. But I think if he responds too much in kind, he really damages his own brand, particularly with the swing voters, these independent voters that he’s very badly going to need on Election Day.”

    After the October 7 debate, the *Washington Post* editorial page (10/8/08
    ) was glad that Ayers and Keating did not come up, calling them both “inflammatory diversions” before characterizing the Keating story as “Mr. McCain’s rather peripheral involvement in a savings-and-loan scandal two decades ago.”

    It’s hard to describe McCain’s role in /the/ savings-and-loan scandal as “peripheral”; as one of the Keating Five, he was a key player in the highest-profile political scandal connected to the financial disaster. Though a Senate investigation cleared McCain of serious wrongdoing (it did flag his “poor judgment”), McCain’s ties to Keating were well-established: He had received over $100,000 from Keating, had traveled on his private jet and had vacationed in the Bahamas with him; McCain’s family and Keating were also involved in a business venture together.

    Most importantly, as federal regulators were looking into Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan, McCain and four other senators held two meetings with those regulators, some of whom were left with the impression that the senators were on hand to influence their investigation in Keating’s favor. As blogger Matthew Yglesias pointed out (10/10/08
    ), “McCain was accused of actual Keating-related wrongdoing, whereas nobody has tried to allege that Obama was actually involved in any of Ayers’ bad acts.”

    McCain has claimed for many years that the shame of the Keating scandal was what motivated his interest in campaign finance reform. But does that mean that the Keating history is off limits? Should reporters treat criticism of McCain’s conduct in the scandal as a low blow, given that more recent stories have suggested that the senator is still doing favors for influential constituents, lobbyists and contributors (*New York Times*, “A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain,” 4/22/08
    *Washington Post, *”McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer,”* *5/9/08

    There is an unfortunate tendency among campaign reporters to suggest “both sides” are equally at fault in situations like this. In this case, the McCain campaign’s accusation that Obama is friendly with a terrorist is considered somehow on par with Obama raising McCain’s political record on a matter of actual relevance.

    envelopeEmail to a friend

    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

    Back to top
    Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
    Messages in this topic (1)

    Federal Prosecutor Outraged At Wicked Smears Against Obama!
    Posted by: “razldazl”
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:49 pm (PDT)

    October 10, 2008

    *Prosecuting Weathermen
    To the Editor:

    Re “Politics of Attack” (editorial, Oct. 8) and “Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths” (front page, Oct. 4):

    As the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972), I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.

    Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.

    Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.

    I do take issue with the statement in your news article that the Weathermen indictment was dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.

    William C. Ibershof
    Mill Valley, Calif., Oct. 8, 2008

    Martha Moran
    300 East 51st Street
    New York, NY 10022
    (212) 371-8015


  3. Posted by: “razldazl”
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:52 pm (PDT)

    October 10, 2008

    Palin: Obama=Netanyahu:Rabin (Sure Hope Not)

    David Bromwich has a moving piece on Huffpo about the actual dangerousness of Palin’s loose talk about Obama, linking him to terrorists. David Gergen has been saying this too. Bromwich says it’s a form of delegitimation which we also saw with Kennedy:

    An unmeasurable but well-recorded condition for the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the campaign of delegitimation that preceded that terrible event. Anti-Castro Cubans hated Kennedy because he had disappointed them at the Bay of Pigs, and seemed to be a warm friend cooling. Many Southern white people hated him for his indications of solidarity with the cause of civil rights. There are other actors and reactions that might be added; but all shared the belief that Kennedy was not a legitimate leader, that he didn’t deserve to be given the chance to go on governing. The hatred was especially virulent in the South. Death threats were in the air and Kennedy had been warned against taking the trip to Texas…

    [W]hen the incantation “He is not one of us” dips so far below sanity that we pretend the rules and decencies aren’t in force any more–it is more than one person who is harmed. This loose way of talking and thinking of violence hardens us against real responsibility if the violent thing should happen. We are administering shocks to ourselves in advance so as not to be surprised by the actuality. But such preparations are in their very nature corrupt, and corrupting.

    I’d note that the same thing happened with Yitzhak Rabin: the atmosphere of contumely toward him in the months before he was killed. He was compared to a member of the Nazi SS for wanting to give up land. And sure enough, a nut killed him. His widow accused Netanyahu of inciting murderous feeling. Lipstick-on-a-pitbull is giving me the willies.

    Posted at 04:16 PM in Israel/Palestine
    , Obama
    , Palin
    | Permalink

    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

    Back to top
    Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
    Messages in this topic (1)

    Abuse of Power: Sarah Palin Could Face Criminal Charges
    Posted by: “razldazl”
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:48 pm (PDT)

    The moose, the trooper — and a scandal that could engulf McCain

    Sarah Palin could face criminal charges over sacking of brother-in-law

    By Leonard Doyle in Washington
    /Saturday, 11 October 2008/

    Could the illegal shooting of a moose in the Alaskan wilderness affect the outcome of the race for the White House? Alaska’s lawmakers were last night reviewing a potentially explosive report after their investigation into charges that Sarah Palin abused her power as Governor by sacking a senior official because he refused to bow to her wishes in a vendetta against her estranged brother-in-law.

    The report’s focus is on the sacking in July of former Alaska public safety commissioner Walter Monegan. Mr Monegan, who ran the state police force, claims he was ousted because he refused to sack Mike Wooten, the ex-husband of Mrs Palin’s sister. One of the complaints given by Ms Palin’s aides against Mr Wooten was that he pulled the trigger that felled a moose without a licence.

    The findings could wreak havoc with John McCain’s already faltering presidential hopes by reopening questions about his failure to vet his running mate. There is even a possibility of a criminal investigation into Mrs Palin. A scandal would, at best, be an unwelcome distraction for Mr McCain in the crucial final weeks of the election. The inquiry added to claims that Mr McCain is erratic at a time when steady leadership is needed.

    The bipartisan investigation began before Ms Palin was picked as John McCain’s running mate. Mrs Palin, who did not co-operate with the inquiry, denies any wrongdoing. Her critics allege that she wanted Mr Wooten drummed out of the police force on technicalities including that he illegally killed a moose during a family hunting expedition in 2003 when he was still married to her Ms Palin’s sister, Molly. Molly had a hunting licence but her husband fired the fatal shot and the animal was eaten by the entire extended Palin family.

    The tensions with Mr Wooten appear to long predate Sarah Palin’s ascent to the governorship. After Mr Wooten had a bitter custody battle with Molly in 2005, Mrs Palin wrote a three-page email to Colonel Julia Grimes, who was then head of the state police force, accusing Mr Wooten of threatening to murder her father, driving on duty while drunk, using a stun gun on his 11-year-old stepson, shooting the moose without a permit, failing to pay a $5 fine for improper rubbish disposal, using illegal steroids and drinking while in his patrol car”

    “Wooten is my brother-in-law, but this information is forwarded to you objectively,” Mrs Palin wrote.

    Todd Palin, although a private citizen whom the Governor refers to as the “First Dude” is accused of hounding officials to have Mr Wooten sacked.

    He acknowledged this week in testimony to the inquiry that he made phone calls and convened meetings claiming Mr Wooten was a dangerous, unstable man who had threatened his family and should be dismissed. He said he made “no apology for wanting to protect my family”. At one meeting in January 2007, according to the New York Times, the Governor’s husband showed Mr Monegan pictures of the dead moose.

    A subsequent inquiry found Mr Wooten guilty of “unacceptable and at times illegal activity”. He was given a five-day suspension and warned he would be dismissed if he offended again.

    The case, known in Alaska as “Troopergate”, would never have exploded into the race for the White House if the matter had been allowed to rest at that.

    But Mr Monegan claims the pressure on him to fire Mike Wooten intensified after the suspension. Mrs Palin denies instructing Mr Monegan to sack Mr Wooten and claims she sacked him over policy differences.

    Earlier, the McCain campaign gave its version of events, portraying the argument as a legitimate policy dispute and political event. “The following document will prove Walt Monegan’s dismissal was a result of his insubordination and budgetary clashes with Governor Palin,” the campaign said.

    As the lawmakers met yesterday, Palin supporters wearing clown noses and carrying balloons greeted them with cheers that “the circus is in town”.

    Mr Monegan said: “I just hope the truth is fgured out. That the governor did want me to fire Mr Wooten and I chose not to. You just can’t walk up to someone and say, ‘I fire you’. He didn’t do anything under my watch to result in termination.”


  4. Posted by: “Zoltan Abraham” zsazle
    Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:34 am (PDT)
    Video Roundup – Thursday, October 9

    (Note: Yes, I put the wrong day in yesterday’s email. I am now reviewing the correct order of days of the week again. Palin’s debate prep team is helping me… :-))

    New Obama ad, keeping the focus on the economy. Excellent work!

    Obama calls out McCain for his erratic behavior.

    A new poll shows Obama ahead in West Virginia. The poll is an outlier, and we would need some further evidence to believe that Obama is truly winning West Virginia right now. But read about what the Democrats are up to in that state. And listen to a radio interview with Obama:

    In the meantime, McCain’s white robe only events… I mean McCain’s campaign rallies are getting more and more vile, and so are his ads. The new theme is that Obama is the friend of an unrepentant domestic terrorist – which is a blatantly ridiculous charge.

    But did you notice that McCain didn’t try the worst of his smear attacks at the debate?

    In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Obama called McCain out for not willing to say these things to his face.

    Why won’t McCain say to Obama’s face what he is willing to say behind his back? Simple, because he is a cowardly bully. He can talk big to his supporters. He can bluster into a camera. But when it comes to a face-to-face confrontation, he runs away.

    Now sing with me,
    “Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    Bravely ran away away.
    When danger reared it’s ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    Bravely taking to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!”

    Note: Is it behind the rabbit?

    Oh, btw, for comparison to the Obama-Gibson interview, here is the Palin-Gibson one:

    Oops, that was actually a satire. But perhaps the satire makes Palin look a bit better than the original footage…

    At a McCain rally in Wisconsin, on Thursday, a McCain supporter described Obama as a “hooligan.” McCain concurred.

    Even some conservatives are getting fed up with the tone of McCain’s campaign:

    So why are McCain and Palin going so negative? Of course, knowing that they are going to lose on the issues, they resort to character assassination in their desperation. But there is more to it than that.

    Not so long ago, Karl Rove bragged about his plans to create a permanent Republican majority. But then came 2006, with the Democrats regaining control of Congress. Now the Democrats are well poised to retake the White House. Chances are the Republicans are sensing that they are about to lose. However, they have still not given up on their permanent Republican majority. If Obama wins, they will see that as losing a crucial battle – but not as losing the war. They will continue to fight against progressives. They will continue to fight against Obama.

    What we are seeing right now is the beginning of a concerted effort on the part of the GOP to destroy Barack Obama. If they cannot defeat him at the polls in November, they will continue to work against him to undermine his presidency. Remember what happened to Bill Clinton? Remember the level of vitriol from the Republicans? We can expect at least the same – but probably much worse, if Obama wins.

    Our response must be to work even harder. We must work toward electing Barack Obama. But we must see that only as one victory (albeit a very important one), but not yet the end of the road. We must work toward the complete and utter defeat of the conservative movement. Nothing short of that will stop the Republicans. We must fight, fight, and fight again, until the conservative movement no longer has any strength left in it.

    Kos of Daily Kos fame ( has an excellent article on this subject:

    Break their back, crush their spirits
    (Not a video)

    A great video by the Young Turks about what the election of Obama could do in terms of restoring the image of our country:

    Perhaps we could describe the election of Obama as the “Rebirth of a Nation”?

    McCain’s veterans problem continues, as Cindy attacks the troops:
    (Not a video.)

    Keith Olbermann is not happy with Cindy’s performance:

    Speaking of military matters, the question of whether or not we should talk to Iran, and if so how, has been beaten to death so many times since the start of the primaries, that if I hear it brought up again one more time, I might… I might just start blinking…

    Seriously, this whole discussion must be the national joke in Iran by now. And by the way, did anyone bother to find out if the Iranians want to talk to us?

    At any rate, General Petraeus, who is something of a household idol for John McCain, has stated that, yes, we need to talk with our enemies. He goes as far as to say that the situation in Iraq has stabilized somewhat in part because we have been talking with our enemies there:

    Note: Petraeus comes across as surprisingly funny and personable. I would not have supposed that of him.

    Remember Oliver? He asked McCain a question at the second debate – and McCain made some assumptions about his knowledge of things:

    Well, Oliver has a response for McCain:
    (Not a video.)

    Jon Stewart tells you the truth about the second debate. I promise!

    And a little more debate levity via Yahoo:

    Yesterday, I talked about how McCain mocked funding for science, even calling such allocations “evil.” Well, scientists are not happy:
    (Not a video.)

    The Troopergate investigation is due to be released Friday, October 10. The McCain campaign has done everything in its power to try to delay it, so we have to wonder what they have to hide. Here is an interesting news report showing Palin contradict herself with regard to the case:

    (By the way, the McCain campaign has preemptively released a report on Troopergate today. What do you think their findings are? They cleared Sarah Palin! Yeay! Without a blink, no less…)

    Speaking of contradictions, here is an interesting article on McCain’s blustering claim about that letter:


  5. Pingback: Bush administration ordered torture, US Senate says | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: Sarah Palin’s racist supporters | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: Worst Americans of 2008 | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: New McCain cartoon | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: Palin found guilty in Troopergate scandal | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: United States Senator John McCain dies | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.