“I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war,” McCain said at his town hall meeting Tuesday, referring to his support for the troop surge. “It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

Nuff said.

Ah. Joe Klein is having a little tizzy over the comment. He actually named his article (it’s possible the editor did, as that happens quite a bit) “McCain Meltdown”

This is the ninth presidential campaign I’ve covered. I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

Yeah, OK, Joe. How about constant comments by this and the last two major Democrat Party presidential candidates saying how horrible our foreign policy is, how they are telling the troops they are dying and being injured for the wrong reasons in the wrong war, essentially dissing the troops, and telling us how bad America is?

Kerry: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs.

Obama: “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Al Gore: While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the real truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors, he is a moral coward.

While we are on the subject of quotes, how about this other one from the Goracle

I think George W. Bush has a warm, engaging personality. But, you know, the presidency is more than just a popularity contest.

Let’s check the tale of the tape

Americans divide evenly between Barack Obama and John McCain’s approaches to the war in Iraq, and rate McCain much more highly on his abilities as commander-in-chief — key reasons the unpopular war isn’t working more to Obama’s advantage.

Despite broad, longstanding dissatisfaction with the war, just 50 percent of Americans prefer Obama’s plan to withdraw most U.S. forces within 16 months of taking office. Essentially as many, 49 percent, side with McCain’s position — setting no timetable and letting events dictate when troops are withdrawn.

Personally, I want a timeline, too. BUT, I want it in a manner that the Iraq people and politicians know we are not going to unilaterly say “see ya!” regardless of what is happening on the ground, but lets them know that “yes, we will be leaving the country in your hands soon.”

One reason McCain can push back on Iraq is his advantage as commander-in-chief — a striking one, albeit perhaps not surprising given his military background. Seventy-two percent of Americans — even most Democrats — say he’d be a good commander-in-chief of the military.

By contrast, fewer than half, 48 percent, say Obama would be a good commander-in-chief, a significant weakness on this measure. (McCain’s rating is much improved from his unsuccessful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, when 56 percent said he’d be a good commander-in-chief — no more than said so, at the time, about George W. Bush.)

72-48. You have to know that virtually none on the Right stated that Obama would be a good CiC. A good kindergarten assisstant, yes. The perfect guy to take over Joe Wilson’s role as ambassador to Gabon, or, perhaps, dealing with the French. But not the guy to protect the United States of America.

Yeah, I am a bit late to the party been kinda iBusy.

Way back on the February 8, 2008, I caught some Lefties whining about McCain’s birth, and whether that made him inneligible to become President. I said it would become the next lefty meme.

Then the NY Times tried it on for size. They were “just wondering.” And Lefties have been pushing on that meme ever since.

Now, the Times tries it yet again

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

OK. Sure. Whatever.

Back to my first post

McCain was born at Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936. Unfortunately for liberals, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory from 1903 to 1979 (thanks, Carter!), so, any person born there was automatically considered a U.S. citizen, except if born to foreign diplomatic personnel. Woops!

It just goes to show the lengths liberals will go to gain power. Lie, cheat, make shat up.

Sister Toldjah: Could the NYT be more obvious in its repeated attempts at casting doubts on McCain’s natural born US citizen status?

James Joyner: Frankly, it might be time to simply fix the Constitution in the manner the Framers intended: by amendment. It’s wholly unclear to me why all of the restrictions on whom Americans may elect president (age, citizenship, number of years previously served) shouldn’t be swept away.

That is the headline at the Washington Post, minus the question mark. What does the WP think is going on?

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed criticism that he is abandoning his principles to move toward the political center, saying he has been consistent in embracing moderate views on several issues, especially his belief that pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq must be done “carefully.”

Obama addressed what he called “this whole notion that I am shifting to the center, or that I am flip-flopping,” with a firm denial that he has tilted his emphasis away from swiftly bringing the war to an end. “Don’t be confused: I am going to bring the Iraq war to a close when I am president of the United States of America,” Obama said.

Ah. That’s what’s going on. The WP is trying to cover Obama’s long held conviction, as repeated by virtually every one of the Nutroots, that Iraq was a distraction, a mistake, we can’t win, and we need to get the hell out now.

The remarks came as both candidates scrambled to clarify their visions for Iraq in the face of changing events on the ground. Sen. John McCain, who has repeatedly derided calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, suddenly found himself confronted with the American-backed Iraqi leadership raising the prospect of exactly that.

And how did McCain refine his position? By explaining that he is against timetables, and wants the conditions on the ground to dictate when we leave. Hmm. He apparently refined it to be exactly what his position has been. I wonder if the dictionaries will offer a definition of “refine” to include “taking the same position as one has always held”?

The entire article is piece designed to make those who do not read the whole article believe that McCain is flip flopping around on Iraq just like Obama, and, for those who do read it, that it is perfectly OK for Obama to change his positions around to the massive displeasure of the people who gave him the presumptive nomination because “McCain is doing it too!” Even though McCain has not changed.

But, hey, good news, Post: The candidate who leads in July has lost the last 6 of 9 elections.

Based on his voting history, he could do it, or at least attempt it. Were Obama to say this, most sane people would be checking to make sure it was not April 1

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

The vow to take on Social Security puts McCain in a political danger zone that thwarted President Bush after he named it the top domestic priority of his second term.

McCain is making the pledge at the beginning of a week when both presidential candidates plan to devote their events to the economy, the top issue in poll after poll as voters struggle to keep their jobs and fill their gas tanks.

As Captain Ed points out

We grew spending by over 35% from 2000, when we had a $2.0 trillion budget. Some of that went to the war effort, but plenty of it came in other discretionary spending. And, as McCain tells Politico, the real spending problem isn’t in discretionary programs but in entitlements. The explosion of spending threatens to overwhelm the federal budget over the next few decades, but already accounts for 58% of federal spending.

In related news, Senator McCain has an in depth plan on what the government can do to help the private sector in creating jobs. Contrast that with the way Obama says he will just create jobs, making us beholden to the federal government.

Furthermore, a very large number of economists are backing McCain’s plans for the economy

We enthusiastically support John McCain’s economic plan. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda. The reform focuses on the real economic problems Americans face today and will face in the future. And it builds on the core economic principles that have made America great.

His plan would control government spending by vetoing every bill with earmarks, implementing a constitutionally valid line-item veto, pausing non-military discretionary government spending programs for one year to stop their explosive growth and place accountability on federal government agencies.

His plan would reduce tax rates by cutting the tax that corporations pay to 25 percent in line with other countries, by completely phasing out the alternative minimum tax, by increasing the exemption for dependents, by permitting the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology, and by making permanent a reformed tax credit for R&D.

His plan would also create a new and much simpler tax system and give Americans a free choice of whether to pay taxes under that simple system or the current complex and burdensome income tax.

His plan would open new markets for American goods and services and thereby create additional jobs for Americans by supporting good free trade agreements, such as the one with Colombia, and working with leaders around the world to avoid isolationism and protectionism. His plan would also reform education, retraining, and other assistance programs so they better help those displaced by trade and other changes in the economy. His plan addresses problems in the financial markets and housing markets by calling for increased transparency and accountability, by targeted assistance to deserving homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and by opposing so-called reform plans which would raise the costs of home-ownership in the future.

The above actions, as well as plans to address entitlement programs — especially Social Security, Medicare and other government health care programs — and his regulatory reforms — especially in the area of health care — constitute a broad and powerful economic agenda. Because of John McCain’s experience working with the American people in all walks of life, with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with leaders around the world, we are optimistic that these plans will become a reality and will create jobs and restore confidence and strong economic growth.

Read the whole thing.

Legitimate news, or just another attempt to drive a wedge between those who will/may vote for Senator McCain? Washington Post - Conservatives Ready To Battle McCain on Convention Platform

Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September’s Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party’s official declaration of principles.

McCain has not yet signaled the changes he plans to make in the GOP platform, but many conservatives say they fear wholesale revisions could emerge as candidate McCain seeks to put his stamp on a document that currently reflects the policies and principles of President Bush.

Let’s see: the article mentions several Conservative “activist” people and groups, such as the American Conservative Union, yet, none of them are talking about battling McCain. Interesting.

Yes, many Conservatives are concerned about some of McCain’s views. Quite a few of us disagree with him on global warming, illegal immigration, and campaign finance. But, most of us disagree with Bush on most of his policies regarding spending, more religion in government, the whole compassionate conservatism issue. McCain is right on the things that matter the most: national security, taxation, spending, and the size and scope of the federal government. Core Conservative issues.

As to global warming and how to “fix” it, the best situation would be to tell the people who believe it is mostly of solely Man’s fault to go jump in a lake and cool their brain pans down, but, too many people have been brainwashed, so, a policy that addresses anthropogenice global warming but doesn’t damage or destroy the economy is smart.

As much as we would like to get rid of the 12-20 million illegals in this country, good luck with that. More importantly, we do need better and more updated policies to deal with the legal immigrants, such as migrant workers, long term workers, students - remember, many of the 9/11 hijackers came on student visas - legal visitors, and those looking for permanent citizenship. Approximately 1/3 of all illegals are those who have overstayed their visas.

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a former Ohio secretary of state, said he does not expect a “bloodletting” in the platform committee. He predicts that conservatives and McCain will be reasonable and stay focused on a November victory: “I don’t think you are going to see any radical departures or inflammatory demands for change in one direction or another.”

Those assurances are not enough for activists such as Echard, who have been on the front lines of GOP platform fights for years. She will be traveling to Minneapolis-St. Paul, site of the Sept. 1-4 convention, for two weeks in August, with the primary goal of making sure the 2008 platform reflects conservative principles.

The problem is, what are conservative principles nowadays? Like those on the liberal side the main issues have been lost in a fog. Pushing faith based programs, compassionate government programs, and pork barrel policies are not conservative. Fighting against gay marriage is an adopted issue, but is not conservative at all. If they want a platform, what about one that reigns in the idiotic actions of those who were elected as conservatives, but then turn around and spend as drunken sailors?

On another note, the very fact that conservatives speak out against policies they do not like is considerably better then the lemming like activities of the Left.