John McCain, Go F*ck Yourself

It's too bad he's not following his friend, Holy Joe out the door.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice has withdrawn her name from consideration as a nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State, after a constant barrage of criticism leveed at her from Republicans following her intelligence community sanctioned statements on the Sunday talk shows a few weeks back, with Senate curmudgeon John McCain leading the charge.

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly - to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” she wrote in a letter to Obama that was released to the public on Thursday afternoon.

 ...Rice said in November that she “relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community” in delivering her assessment. Intelligence officials said that they approved her talking points, having decided ties to organized terrorism, and specifically al Qaeda, were still unclear at that point just five days removed from the attack.

The knives were out from the very beginning, and McCain certainly knows this as I'm sure he got the same intelligence reports that Rice used to make her comments. But it wasn't very long ago when John McCain defended another Rice, Condoleezza, in her nomination for the same position after "mushroom clouding" us into a war. But that Rice was a Republican, wasn't she...



Fuck you, John McCain. You can't retire fast enough.

Goodbye and Good Riddance, Joe Lieberman

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman made his farewell speech yesterday to a mostly empty Senate chamber. And for good reason: nobody gives a shit about him.

Whenever I hear the name Joe Lieberman my reaction is "fuck that guy."

Lieberman droned about the need for bipartisanship in the Senate. He recalled the days when things got done by working with friends on the other side of the aisle. But Lieberman lost Democratic support not because he sided with Republicans on occasion, but because not only was he was an opportunistic scumbag who would stab you in the back, but more importantly because he was so goddamn consistently wrong.

He almost blew the 2000 Election (before the Supreme Court actually blew it) when he gnashed his yellow teeth on the Sunday talk shows and couldn't stick to what he knew to be the truth, what he was told by his own advisers. I remember that day well, as I was watching with bleary eyes and suddenly my hair caught fire. Here's the dramatized scene from HBO's fantastic movie, Recount.



The Democratic Party didn't leave Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party.

He left it when he supported the Iraq War even after we found out the truth. Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party when he lost his 2006 Democratic primary against Ned Lamont and decided to run as an "independent." After he won the election in a three way race, he then he held his vote hostage to keep leadership positions on certain committees.

Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party when he endorsed John McCain for president and speechified his mind-numbing patented drone that only Lieberman can drone at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

And don't fool yourself about why he's quitting. If he thought he had a chance to win he would have run in a second. He lost his support because he's become completely untrustworthy. He supported lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 until then Rep. Anthony Weiner and other liberals touted it as a great idea and included a Medicare buy-in in the Affordable Care Act. Then Lieberman completely backed off the idea. Was it because of fiscal reasons as he states, or was it payback for feeling rejected by the party he walked away from? So much for that bipartisanship he was mumbling about on the floor yesterday.

Whenever I hear idiots on the right whine on and on that President Obama had majorities* in both the House and the Senate, including that the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, where Republicans have engaged in record filibusters to stymie every bill that comes their way, all I can think of is three words: Joe. Fucking. Lieberman. He was consistently a thorn in the side of the Democratic party and leadership when his vote really counted. Sort of like McCain was after 2000. The only difference between McCain and Lieberman is that you know McCain is just prison fucking you in the ass out of spite, while Lieberman smiles that yellow toothy smile as he reaches for the Vaseline. Both are nasty, old, bitter warmongers who legislate out of spite while the latter tries to do it in sheep's clothing.

So goodbye and good riddance, Holy Joe. I'd say, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" but actually, I don't give a fuck.

__________________
* And don't get me started about waiting for Al Franken for six fucking months and then Ted Kennedy dying less than two months later. The fact is that Democrats NEVER HAD 60 fucking votes.

John McCain's Sour Grapes Doctrine

The Politics of Hate and Revenge

I've been obsessing about John McCain lately - but only because he's such a vile, little man. You don't have to look very hard to see through McCain's thin skin into his black heart to recognize that holding a grudge is Johnny Maverick's forte.

I mean, seriously, what else is this guy good at? Foreign policy? Hardly. Just because you were a war hero doesn't make you an expert at all things foreign policy. Unless that sole policy position is war escalation no matter the circumstance. Rachel Maddow had a great piece on this earlier in the week, showing McCain's response to foreign affairs over the years. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But McCain's biggest flaw, of a myriad of flaws is that he is a sore loser. He ran for President in 2000 and after winning the New Hampshire primary, was attacked with a George W. Bush whisper campaign about fathering an illegitimate black child. That child happened to be McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh. After Bush won the nomination and eventually became President, John McCain adopted a policy of revenge. What I call his Sour Grapes Doctrine.

In hindsight, what looked like McCain opposing Bush policies and voting against them for what Democrats at the time assumed were the right reasons, it was all a matter of getting back at the dweeb who beat him in the 2000 primary, especially after those vicious smear tactics.

Steve Kornacki: "...McCain’s various self-reinventions as a politician are best understood as acts of sore loser-dom. A decade ago, for instance, he took up a sudden interest in closing the gun show loophole, enacting a patients’ bill of rights, and stopping tax cuts for the wealthy. Not at all coincidentally, this came just after he’d lost a bruising campaign against George W. Bush. Bush and his team had been rough – very, very rough – on McCain, and McCain had deemed them unworthy victors. His sudden cooperation with Democrats in 2001 was his version of payback, giving the new Bush White House fits."

Of course, that all ended with 9/11 and by 2004, McCain was ignoring the swiftboating of another war hero, John Kerry, while supporting the re-election of Dubya, complete with head-on-shoulder man hugs. And apparently being presented a birthday cake while a major US city drowned is all you need to let bygones be bygones. Sorry about that bastard black baby thing... Here's a cake!

Fast forward four quick years and this time John McCain wins the Republican nomination but botches the general election while singing "Bomb Iran, "picking The Hockey Mom From Wasilla as his unfortunate running mate, suspending his campaign to sit in on a financial Wall Street crisis meeting where he promptly adds nothing by keeping his mouth shut, and referring to his opponent as "that one" in a debate.

But since he's had so much practice at grudge politics, McCain tacks to the right and decides to become a thorn in President Obama's side as he did with Bush, to the point of not just accusing US Ambassador Susan Rice of being incompetent and "not very bright" by repeating intelligence reports given to her by the CIA which happened to be vague and still pending information (intelligence reports that McCain himself probably had a copy of),  but threatening to filibuster not only her possible nomination as the next Secretary of State, but ANY nomination President Obama would propose to succeed Hillary Clinton, because he wants answers on what happened in Benghazi. And he'll even miss classified briefings about what happened in Benghazi to hold a press conference to demand answers on what happened in Benghazi!

John McCain is a vindictive, curmudgeonly, sour little prick who can't get over the fact that he blew his chance. And now he's using his elected office to continue an obstructionist strategy, despite seeming more and more unhinged. If only he'd use his powers for good instead of pettiness.

ADDING... Here's Steve Kornacki's rant on The Cycle. It's worth watching if you can stomach S.E. Cupp... which is not an easy task.

Reid to McCain: Cut the Crap

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had some words for John McCain about his ongoing sour grapes. And he put them in a letter addressed to the Maverick, and CC'ed Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte because they are now being insufferable assholes on this Benghazi thing.

"I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks... 

...You already have the opportunity to engage more fully in the fulsome and ongoing investigation in the events in Benghazi... [but] failed to attend a classified briefing held by the Senate Homeland Security Committee on this very issue."

In other words, you're making a fool of yourself. Knock it off, you idiot.

View the full letter here.

McCain Needs to Go Away

How much hate can one man hold against another? How bitter must a person be to look for any misguided excuse to fingerpoint and shake his fist in outrage despite making himself look like a complete loon in the process?

Arizona Senator and former 2008 losing Republican presidential candidate John McCain is still in stage two of the five stages of loss and grief: Anger. And since he doesn't have the balls to challenge the president directly, he'll hypocritically go after UN Ambassador Susan Rice for expressing CIA intelligence at the time almost verbatim in regards to the Benghazi embassy attack.

But no matter. McCain can keep tilting at windmills along with his personal Sancho Panza, Sen. Lindsey Graham, about the Benghazi attack and claim a coverup or incompetence in this instance, but defend then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in her "mushroom cloud" assessment because that's what the intelligence assessment said at the time. Why is that explanation good enough for Condoleezza Rice when it then had a direct result of taking the country into war on false pretenses, but not good enough for Susan Rice who had no direct involvement with the State Department and whose statements were consistent with CIA intelligence at the time? Oh right, it's okay if you're a Republican.

John McCain needs to go away. His mind is muddled with anger and revenge, never getting over 2008's loss. If he were so interested in the actual information about what happened in the Libyan embassy attack and the intelligence leading up to Benghazi on September 11th, he should have attended the classified briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which he is a member, instead of holding a photo op press conference demanding information that was being disseminated in said meeting simultaneously, and calling for another investigation, also known as another witch hunt.

 Reporters would do well to skip McCain's pressers from now on, else they'll risk missing actual news.

McCain to Bachmann: Have You No Sense of Decency?

Kudos to Senator John McCain fighting back against Tea Party Queen and 21st Century Joe McCarthy, Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is claiming Secretary of State aide Huma Abedin is some sort of secret agent for the Muslim Brotherhood based on yet another wingnut conspiracy theory.

"These allegations about Huma [Abedin] and the report from which they are drawn are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant," said McCain in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday morning. The accusations stem from a report by the Center for Security Policy. The organization is run by Frank Gaffney, who has been crusading against the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law for years... 

..."The letter alleges that three members of Huma’s family are 'connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations,'" he said. "Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago. The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government." 

"These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit," McCain added. "And they need to stop now."... 

..."Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person," he added. "This is about who we are as a nation, and who we still aspire to be ... When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it."

This is what we are dealing with, folks. Outrageous, idiotic, uneducated liars of the first order. Who are the elected officials that signed on to the letters sent to federal agencies demanding witch hunts on Abedin? Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). These, along with Michele Bachmann and Iowa's Republican Rep. Steve King (surprisingly not among the signers), are the looniest of the loons. The inmates that run the Tea Party asylum.

And they are dangerous.

(I suggest you watch the video of McCain's speech here.)


_______________________________
UPDATE: Rep. Steve King may not have signed his name to the Bachmann letter in question, but I included him in the wingnut pile for reasons like this.

McCain: Homina, Homina Homina... Get Off My Lawn!

Mitt Romney's taxes. That's what we're talking about. Why won't he release his more than the tax returns he's made available when he knew he was running for president? What's he hiding? Well, maybe nothing, but the perception is that he does have something to hide, otherwise, why not release the forms?

When John McCain was asked why he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate over Romney after reviewing 23 years of Romney tax returns made available to the McCain campaign, John McCain said this:

...because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate," he said. "Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."

Yes. You read that correctly. The McCain campaign thought Sarah Freakin' Palin was a better vice presidential candidate than, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and countless others when searching for someone who would be the Commander-in-Chief should something happen to John McCain.

Perhaps the McCain camp saw something in Romney's tax returns that made them cringe. Perhaps they saw something that they figured the American public would find just as problematic. We may never know.

But soon after Grampa Simpson realized he stuck his slippered foot in his mouth, he attempted to walk back his statement.

John McCain sought to clarify his remarks on Tuesday that he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate over Mitt Romney because she was the “better candidate” and not due to Romney’s tax returns. A statement released by his Senate office reads:

“Some in the media have chosen to take my answer today, in response to the question of why I did not select Governor Romney as my vice presidential nominee, out of context. I selected Sarah Palin because she was the best fit for my campaign, and my decision had nothing to do with the bogus tax return attacks currently being waged by the Obama campaign. I have the highest respect for Governor Romney and his record of public service, and he will make an outstanding president.”

But not such a high respect that he would have been an outstanding Vice President? Thanks, Senator McCain. You've made things very, very clear.

Romney Proves Himself To Be A Pandering Coward

Leadership takes guts. Leadership takes balls. Leadership means occasionally having to make a tough decision and stand up for what you think is right. And so far, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has shown none of those leadership qualities. Why else would he let a comment about trying President Obama for treason go without comment at one of his own town halls?



Now, I do believe Mitt Romney when he says that he disagrees with the woman who made the treason comment while asking a different question. But why is it that it took someone else to actually ask the question of Romney? Why didn't Romney take the bull by the horns like Sen. John McCain did in 2008 when confronted with a similar situation?

The answer of course, is that Mitt Romney has proven himself to be a pandering coward. He is willing to say anything or do anything to garner potential votes. What he and his staff don't realize is that he needn't pander to the extreme right wing. He doesn't have to cater to the crazies, because those nut jobs have no intention of voting for Barack Obama in the first place. He already has their votes. What he needs are moderates and independents to think he would make a good president, and by letting pivotal moments like this slide, he's showing the opposite.

And this happened on the heels of strategic advisor Richard Grenell resigning from the Romney camp without so much as a peep after conservatives balked at the thought of an openly gay man advising Mitt Romney. Heaven forbid! And to top it off, the main culprit, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who stirred that anti-gay shit in the first place had this to say of Romney after the Grenell resignation:

How is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin, how is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me? I mean, I don't think Romney is realizing the doubts that this begins to raise about his leadership.

Doubts about Romney's leadership. I couldn't agree more.

Spiking the Football

I've heard this phrase, "spiking the football," mentioned numerous times in the last few days in reference to the GOP and the right wing punditry accusing President Obama of politicizing the killing of Osama Bin Laden under his administration's watch.

"Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad." ~Sen. John McCain.

Uh-huh. It's not like McCain would ever do something like politicize 9/11, right?

"If he wants to take credit for it I have no problem with that at all. I wish he wouldn't use it as a source of negative campaigning. I think that's a big mistake." ~Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney said this, at of all places... wait for it... in front of a New York City firehouse that lost 11 members of their department on 9/11 after sharing pizza with the current crew and Rudy "Noun, Verb, 9/11" Giulani. He's literally criticizing President Obama, the man who gave the order to take Bin Laden out, for politicizing his accomplishment while politicizing a New York CIty visit with first responders. A pizza photo op.

And this is an accomplishment that no one else can claim. Certainly not the previous administration, and no, not Mitt Romney either. Romney who, back when then Senator Obama gave a hypothetical during a presidential debate about unilaterally going into Pakistan and taking out OBL if they wouldn't, said it was a foolish thing to say, doubled down on it today while standing if front of a plaque with the names of fallen 9/11 firefighters.

"I said that very clearly in the response that I made, but that I thought — and many people believed as I did — that it was naive on the part of the president at that time, the candidate, to say he would go into Pakistan."

Yet, that's the situation that President Obama found himself in, And that's the decision he made. A decision Mitt Romney probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to make because according to Romney himself, it wasn't worth it.

Romney: “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”

So yeah, spike the fucking football. Spike it all the way to November, because America has to remember that while one candidate didn't think it was worth going after Bin Laden, and while a previous president didn't "spend that much time on him," the current President did.

The GOP has constantly claimed to be the daddy party, with some phantom stranglehold on national security dibs. But no more. They insist President Obama is weak on foreign policy and national security, and when it's presented to them in black and white that this President has been more successful than any of their clown car politicians, they claim he's politicizing. Fuck, yeah he's politicizing! But the difference is he's touting his results and displaying his bona fides for all to see, as opposed to scare tactics like, say... raising the terror threat level for political reasons or invoking 9/11 constantly while running for President.

So spike the fucking football, then pick it up, sign it and shove it down their throats.


UPDATE: It looks like Bob Cesca and I were on the same wavelength.

When McCain noted that President Obama criticized Hillary Clinton’s “invoking on Bin Laden,” McCain was right. And so did I at the time. But here’s the big difference: the president isn’t using Bin Laden to scare us. The Republicans only ever used 9/11, Bin Laden and terrorism to scare people into voting for them. This is fearmongering. It’s the flagrant exploitation of both a tragedy and the threat of an on-the-loose maniac to trick voters into supporting Republican policies for no other reason than to ameliorate their irrational fear.

His Daily Banter piece is a good read - great videos to drive home the point too.


ALSO, this:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Victory Lapse
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Victory Lapse - The Anniversary of Osama bin Laden's Death
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

AND THIS!!!

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He Can Do No Right

Look, I know that if you're a Republican, to agree with anything that President Obama has to offer is a political risk. I know that everyone in the GOP has pretty much taken the Mitch McConnell tact of making President Obama a one-term president as its main and major goal, even at the risk of US economic collapse. I know that the Republican Party likes to tout itself as the party of national security. But these latest comments from Republican Senator John McCain and his personal Renfield, Senator Lindsey Graham are absolutely laughable.

"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi," their statement reads, "but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

This statement comes from the same two Senators that were part of a delegation that considered selling nonlethal defense equipment to Gaddafi's Libya (with a little McCain bow to boot in his meeting with Gaddafi).

McCain wanted the US's "full weight" of the military airpower, and yet his own members of Congress were losing their shit just a few weeks ago, stomping their feet with a House vote to admonish the President for continuing America's role in the NATO operation and claiming a violation of the War Powers Act, and threatened to cut off funding for the operation. Does that mean that McCain and Graham would have been fine with a unilateral US strike against Libya with the "full weight" of our airpower had it only taken 89 days?

The bottom line is that the Republican Party has lost their "strong on defense" moniker and they don't like it.

The Obama administration was successful in taking out the Somali pirates that captured Captain Richard Phillips and held him hostage, but immediately afterward came the email smear campaign that the President was hesitant in authorizing lethal force.

President Obama made capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden a top priority as soon as he was sworn into  office and said so during the campaign. This was something George W. "Wanted Dead Or Alive" Bush couldn't bother with just six months after 9/11. Yet again, right wingers went to the Internet and created another smear email to claim something about which they knew nothing.

And now, with a war in Afghanistan and in the process of a methodical withdrawal from Iraq, and the President deciding to honor the US's obligation to NATO and the UN in the Libya conflict, and here are the Republicans making sure to criticize the widest range possible just to confirm they cover everything, from acting without Congressional authority, or berating Obama for letting France and England take the lead in the action, to now McCain and Graham whining about not acting quickly enough and that it took six months to ouster a dictator who held power for 42 years. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is praising the efforts while criticizing the the naysaying GOP.

The fighting continues in Tripoli, and Moammar Gadhafi still hasn't been captured, but the triumph of the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels seems to be only a matter of time. Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction at the Council on Foreign Relations or among some GOP Presidential candidates, this is a victory for freedom and U.S. national interests.

A dictator with American blood on his hands is about to be overthrown by a popular revolt invoking democratic principles. Not a single American has died in the effort, and the victory would not have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and targeting as part of NATO. A long-oppressed people now has a chance to chart a freer future, a fact that is clear from the rejoicing in Benghazi.

What would we prefer: That Gadhafi stay in power?

...Yet some of the same people who said we shouldn't help the rebels now want the U.N. to send "boots on the ground," including U.S. troops. It's not clear that the Libyans want or even need such help, especially from Americans, which could complicate their own nascent attempts at self-government.

...President Obama was right yesterday to urge the rebels to pursue "reconciliation." But America's foreign policy elites have also so far misjudged the rebels, who have shown impressive persistence and coordination in maintaining a six-month military campaign.

...One disappointment is the reluctance among Republicans to praise the rebel success, perhaps for fear it will somehow help Mr. Obama.

...U.S. intervention has succeeded in preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi and soon in deposing a long-time U.S. enemy who could have re-emerged as a terrorist sponsor.

Michele Bachmann, who played the al Qaeda tune, now looks partisan to a fault.

...The U.S. military is stretched at the current moment and we can't take sides in every civil war. But the Libyan intervention shows that when the cause is just and the means are available, the U.S. can make a moral and strategic difference.

U.S. support for the rebels won't be lost on a Middle East still undergoing its own upheavals, not least on the people and governments of Syria and Iran. NATO showed it will finish a military task it started, and soon Gadhafi will take his place with Saddam in the ranks of Arab despots who will terrorize their people no more.

I believe everyone has forgotten (including Michael Steele and the Morning Joe pundits this morning) that the initial intervention is Libya was a humanitarian one, with NATO acting on the information that Gaddafi was about to unleash hell on his own people in Benghazi.

And yet, President Obama can do no right. He doesn't even read the right books on vacation. I suppose he would have gotten a reprieve on the reading list criticism if he'd included Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and Rick Perry's FED UP!, both also works of fiction, by the way.

Maverick!

Hey, where ya been, John?

McCain: Tea Party-Backed Lawmakers Making 'Foolish' Demands

The Bachmann-Bot 6000

I must now assume that Michele Bachmann (R-Earl Gray) is not actually a human being, but some kind of cybertronic robot preprogrammed to never stray from whatever talking point script is typed into its memory at any given time.

What other reason could there be for the Bachmann-Bot 6000 to repeat "over $105 billion" eight times in a twelve minute interview on Stretch's Meet The Press? It's hard drive must have been damaged during transport to the studio and continued rebooting during camera time. It actually pulled out a cue card in Safe Mode.

"Crime against democracy... Obamacare... debt ceiling... $105 billion... $105 billion... gangster government... $105 billion... $105 billion... does not compute... does not compute..."

This doesn't even begin to touch on the "gangster government" comment the Bachmann-Bot 6000 used in describing the Obama administration.

Let's also note that the Meet The Press powers that be should be ashamed of themselves for giving a wingnut like Bachmann-Bot 6000 a national platform to spread its lunacy across the airwaves. Let's hope they think twice before booking morons again... although I'm sure John McCain will make his bi-monthly appearance very soon.

Sitting Together at the State of the Union

Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to the nation standing in front of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (we think). As a symbolic sign of decreased rhetoric and bipartisanship after the Tucson shooting tragedy, some members of opposing parties of Congress have decided to break tradition and sit together.

I have one word for this gesture: bullshit.

This isn't something that transpired organically. What a story it would be if when walking into the chamber today, unbeknownst to anyone, members of Congress truly searched for what they claim are "friends on the other side of the aisle" and decided then and there to sit together. But that's not what's happening. This was something that was petitioned and members signed on to.

"I believe that members of both parties can symbolize our common citizenship and common interests by sitting together to hear the president's remarks, rather than divided across the aisle by party," [Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer] said in a statement Thursday.

One wonders whether their symbolism will continue during the address, when Democrats will undoubtedly stand and applaud during sections of the speech. Will the Republicans they're sitting next to do the same?

Will Congressman Paul Ryan's Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union be toned down in rhetoric and criticism? We'll find out tonight, but my guess is that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's Tea Party address will lack such civility.

On a side note, while I praised Senator John McCain a few days back for his views on President Obama's address at Tucson, he couldn't even be bothered to truly find someone at odds with him to sit with, as his "date" tonight is reported to be Senator Joe Lieberman. Nothing like showing bipartisanship by choosing to sit with the senator who describes himself as an "Independent Democrat" and endorsed you in your failed 2008 presidential bid, Maverick.

ADDING... I prematurely published my post before making another point. The reason I'm not really thrilled with this symbolic seating gesture and frankly don't think it matters is because while we usually think of a "it's not what they say it's what they do" mantra when it comes to politicians, the reverse is true in this case.  It's not what they do, such as mixing up the seating arrangement to not appear so divided, but it's what they say, and what they will say and how they say it after the address that's important. Conservatives sitting next to liberals, Democrats sitting next to Republicans means absolutely nothing without taking that symbolism and applying it toward their everyday experiences while working in Congress. I just don't see that happening anytime soon because of who you sit next to for an hour out of the year at the State of the Union. I hope I'm wrong.

Rrrruhh?!

Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain issued high praise for President Obama's Wednesday address that honored victims of the Arizona shootings.

..."Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so," McCain writes. "It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities."

In all seriousness, I am glad that someone in a leadership position* in the Republican party actually came out to praise President Obama's address in Tucson. After hearing some positive response from the right regarding memorial service speech, most of them immediately went into their usual tones, completely missing the message.

While that was expected, it's good to see not only a prominent Republican, but the one man who has seemed the most bitter and contrarian after his 2008 presidential defeat, be the one to openly join the President in his message of civility.

(* When I say leadership position, I mean someone of seniority and stature, not an official position. Especially after seeing the newly elected Speaker of the House reject the notion that he can tell Birthers within his party occupying House seats to knock off the nonsense.)

Jon Stewart's Back!

... And he's setting his sights on John McCain. An instant classic.

Let's All Stand on John McCain's Lawn

Quote of the Day

And of course, there was Senator John McCain and his decade-long passion project that closely resembles Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," except that the "Christ" is replaced by "everything McCain ever had that vaguely resembled a principle or something in which a human being would normally take pride." McCain moved goalposts and shifted standards and broke promises and basically demonstrated himself to be an implacable heel.

But, you know what, the less said about McCain, the better. Let's hang another "L" around his neck and move on.

~Jason Linkins' on John McCain during his observations of those opposed to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Dog Pile on McCain

And deservedly so.

John McCain's flip flops are becoming the stuff on legends, but whereas previously it was played off as being all mavericky, now he's showing himself to be nothing but a bitter, old man (and possibly a little senile) who will say anything to oppose the man the soundly beat him for the Oval Office, even if it means taking a contradictory stance on your own policy positions.

Here are Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow calling out the Maverick of the Senate.

Dude, Seriously?

[smashing head into keyboard]

Cindy McCain: Learning the Flip-Flop from The Master!

It looks like Cindy McCain has been squeezed into supporting her husband's backward stance on DADT immediately after appearing in a commercial condemning the policy in support of the LBGT community. But when you lay with the king of flip-floppers, expect to wake up with flip-flopping fleas.



I wonder how soon Meghan McCain will realize her mother and father are full of shit, and defect to the Democratic Party... or at least consider herself an Independent.

Maverick!

HuffPost: ...When asked how far he would go to prevent an attempt to repeal the controversial [DOn't Ask, Don't Tell] policy from being approved in the upper congressional chamber, [Sen. John] McCain responded by saying, "Absolutely I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness."

The longtime senator said that it doesn't matter to him that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen have both voiced support for stopping the enforcement of the ban on gay troops.

However, back in 2006 McCain communicated a distinctly different stance on the issue when he said, "The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it."

Of course, John "It's not the policy" McCain continues to deliberately ignore the fact that the repeal of DADT would happen after the study on the effect of the repeal is completed.

Pathetic.