Briget, keep your head up!! You’re a sweetheart!

I find it funny that libertarians who happily supported this administration have a problem with McCain because of the campaign finance bill. They did not have problems with us meddling in Iraq. They did not have a problem when he signed a Medicare bill that is going to cost some 600 billion dollars and made his people lie for him about the true costs. No problems with gay marriage amendment for political gain. They draw a line at campaign finance reform.

Liberals have a problem because he is not consistent. Please. Foolish consistency is not going to win him any votes. He has to win and I think he will. Once elected, given his history and his ability to work across party lines he will be a good (a solid B) president.

It would help matters if Rove got his facts straight. Yes, Bridget is Bangladeshi, but Mother Theresa did not run any orphanages there. But the idea is to mention McCain and Mother Theresa in the same article, to gloss over the fact that McCain was never much of a church-goer through most of his life. If we are reminiscing about McCain, how about his use of the term “gook”? Can’t go there – there’s probably more Rev. Wright videos we have not seen.

Actually there is a Mother Theresa orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Not a novel notion, but the two-party system combined with an executive form of government leads to a disastrous paucity of views in the public sphere, and forces people like you who broadly identify as socially moderate (or liberal?) and fiscally conservative (I am assuming) to make the best of a bad combination.

That’s accurate. If forced to put a name on it I’d say socially moderate (left on a couple of social issues mostly right on others and throw in a healthy dash of libertarian) and yes to the fiscal conservatism. I’d classify myself as a center-right dem who can identify with moderate repubs. I would also blame this primary system for creating a crucible where only two seemingly divergent views can exist. It forces alleged moderates or mavericks like Mccain to the right to placate or pander to a “base” and sends Obama and Clinton drifting farther and farther to the left. Part of me does wonder, however, whether having more than two established parties would bring a greater benefit. Would it end up like modern media where the multitude of voices screaming for attention prevent the development of any kind of consensus or at least a unifying idea to hold on to? At least with the party system as is, there is some filtering and prioritization of what the party thinks is good for the country rather than solely relying on what the special interests may want. I certainly wouldn’t want a coalition gov’t where the minority has the ability to prevent legislation that most of the country wants. (i.e. India nuclear deal).

I’m sure that the Mccain’s charity and warm hearts resulted in Bridget growing up to be a wonderful person. Additionally, I greatly respect and admire Sen. Mccain for his service, his sacrifice and his courage. I’d just hope he were smart enough not to use that as the only reason why he might make a good president. This election cycle has so many important issues that are at the forefront that I don’t think too many Americans are going to simply rest their heads on he or she seems like a good guy or gal. Maybe it’s just a case of SM’s new favorite phrase: a soft bigotry of lowered expectations. Rove’s lowered expectation that all Americans will care or can care about this cycle is a war record and a warm heart or in the dem’s case beer-drinking, bowling scores and whether someone’s african-american or a woman. Mccain and all of the candidates have an obligation to do better than that, especially where a lot of moderates or independents aren’t overly excited with any of the candidates.

At least us dems have been consistently self-destructive for a long time now, even when we should actually

Not a novel notion, but the two-party system combined with an executive form of government leads to a disastrous paucity of views in the public sphere, and forces people like you who broadly identify as socially moderate (or liberal?) and fiscally conservative (I am assuming) to make the best of a bad combination.

I forgave McCain when he gave a commencement address for an agent of intolerance. I forgave McCain when he claimed to be a foe of lobbyists. I forgave McCain when he walked in a flak jacket, surrounded by Iraqi army brigades and helicopters through an Iraqi market, and claimed parts of Baghdad were just fine. I forgave McCain when he voted for torture. I forgave McCain when he lied/misspoke that Shia Iran was in cahoots with Sunni Al-Qaeda. I forgave McCain when he lied/misspoke again that Shia Iran was in cahoots in Sunni Al-Qaeda.

All of this has me asking Sen. Mccain“say it ain’t so”. Between, Hill’s Tuzla two-step and Obama’s inability to conclude his oratorical fireworks without a crescendo has me wondering if it’s just another election season where I’m choosing between the lesser of three evils.

As for Rove’s advice, I doubt Mccain would follow it. He’s been reluctant to speak about his son who served in Iraq or put his children out there. I think this is just one of Palpatine’s Jedi mind tricks. Most adult males would discredit anyone who stoops so low to throw their kids out into the spotlight simply for their own gain. Palpatine probably wants Mccain to do it since he wants to make someone look worse than G dub right now. (I just don’t see how that’s possible where moderate repubs. no longer recognize their own party.)

But now, he calls Tom Friedman an economist??? This, my friend (as McCain likes to say), is truly the last straw!