Baghdad Johnny's BFF
-McCain needs the war so that the war will need McCain-
WaPo's Chris Cillizza begins a post by asking two questions; "Could positive developments on the ground in Iraq force Barack Obama to reconsider his position on the war in Iraq? And, if so, how would such a reconsideration impact the current dynamic between Obama and John McCain?"
My answers were "no" and "see my first answer." Turns out, I'm not alone. Cillizza put the questions to a "panel of party strategists" and the near-consensus proved me right -- people don't oppose the war because we're losing, people oppose the war because it's a stupid idea. You don't keep beating up the wrong guy because you're winning.
Even John Weaver, a former McCainiac, agreed that good or bad, no one's going to change their opinion of the Iraq war just because it may be going better.
But it was someone Cillizza lists only as "Prominent Republican Consultant, granted anonymity" who gave the most telling answer. "The peril is for McCain. McCain is the security candidate. That is why he is needed. The less germane the security issue becomes, the less McCain is needed," he said. "On which other issues is McCain really needed?"
Hell, I'd argue that this proves he's not needed on the war. If this is what your own party is saying, how likely would you be to ever end it? Between this and adviser Charlie Black's comments that a terrorist attack would be good for him, I think the McCain campaign could do with a little less straight talk. (Washington Post)
-Headline of the day-
"McCain Disavows Top Adviser -- But Said the Same Thing in December."
Wow, speak of the Devil...
McCain told reporters that he "strenuously" disagreed with adviser Charlie Black's statement that a terrorist attack on the US "would be a big advantage" to McCain and that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto helped McCain win New Hampshire.
"I can't imagine why he would say it. It's not true...I strenuously disagree," he said, failing to add that he was "shocked, shocked!" to find that gambling was going on in Humphrey Bogart's bar in Casablanca.
The problem, of course, is that this is another flip-flop from the man who seems to be staking out a position on both sides of every issue under the sun. Last year, he told a different story.
Politico:
"My theme has been throughout this campaign that I am the one with the experience, the knowledge and the judgment," McCain told reporters after a speech to an overflow crowd at an Elks Lodge here. "So, perhaps it (i.e., the turmoil caused by the assassination) may serve to enhance those credentials."
Asked for comment, Baghdad Johnny said he "super-duperly" disagreed with the statement and challenged the McCain from last year to a series of town hall debates. (Huffington Post)
-We all doomed! DOOOOOOOMED!-
The right wing evangelical group Family Research Council (which I've never known to actually do any research) is warning us that California same sex marriages spell the end of Father's Day.
"Beginning Monday judges are removing the word husband from California marriage certificates. The next step will be to remove the term father from birth certificates. Enjoy this Father's Day," FRC wrote in ads in CA newspapers, "It might be your last."
Will same sex marriage turn everyone gay? Will kids start calling their fathers "Party B?" Who knows? Family Research Council doesn't make it a habit to be completely honest or sane. But Father's Day is clearly screwed, since FRC says so. Logic need not apply; hysteria only, please.
Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Hallmark expressed deep sadness for the loss of the holiday. (Talk2Action)
