I think we all agree that the Viet Cong torture of John McCain was inhuman and immoral. So which country is John McCain putting first when he lowers America to the level of the Viet Cong by voting for "enhanced interrogation"?

When discussing the potential VP pick of Gov. Kaine, Karl Rove said that picking a newly-minted governor who had previously been the mayor of a small town would be an intensely political move that showed that Obama did not care about choosing someone who had the experience to lead. So which country is McCain putting first when he picks Sarah Palin as his VP when her sole credentials are being a newly-minted governor and the mayor of a small town? (According to Rove, that means that McCain put his political goal of winning ahead of the country's needs. You can argue with Rove if you want to, but I agree.)

When John McCain takes money from lobbyists and has more houses than he can keep track of, which country is McCain putting first? (The country of the people who own seven houses? Is that where you live?)

When McCain opposes taxing oil companies and when supports continuing our investment in an oil-based infrastructure which helps to fund nations which don't like us very much, which country is he putting first?

Seriously: what policies does John McCain have that leads you to believe that "Country First" is really what he's thinking?

hey Joe, thanks for the long post. (Also, I just noticed your post about motive--I'll try to get to that one soon, if not tonight. I'm tired!)

This is going to be a little out of order, but:

I agree that Keating 5 is old. (I was around, but probably playing with G.I. Joes.) Actually, I haven't heard anyone other than me talk about it, and the only reason I bring it up is because I really thought McCain was a great guy in 2000, and then someone pointed out that his record is a little shady (not dark, mind you--just shady. Like, lots of marriages fall apart, and it's sad, but it's not a crime. So, McCain cheated on his first wife--that's not a crime, it's just... shady.)

As for trust, I agree with you--I mean, politicans can make promises about what they will try to do, and you vote for the one who you think has the best ideas and will try the hardest. But when it comes right down to it, I want someone who will fight for what I believe is right in crises that I could not have expected. It's not just about the platforms they have now, but how they might deal with new situations.

As for McCain running to win--you're right, I can't name any presidential ticket that ran on a sort of Brewster's Millions "don't elect me" sort of platform. But McCain's campaign has made some very questionable choices--which means that McCain has made some questionable choices.

(Clarification: We elect one, maybe two people, right, but their job is to pick just about everyone else; so one thing we need from a president is that he/she is able to pick the best people and make them work like a team. And the first team that they pick is their campaign team. I mean, McCain/Obama hasn't picked any blogger, so they cannot be held accountable for the cuh-razy things we say when we should be sleeping. But for things that their campaign does officially--yes, for that I think we can and should hold them accountable.)

So, looking at FactCheck.org--which I honestly which I were getting a nickel every time I say their name, but since I discovered them and saw that they correct both parties, they've really become a daily site for me--ahem. So, looking at this summer's crop of ads, I find they had to correct:

June: 1 Obama, 1 McCain (ah, June, we were so civilized then.)

July: 2 Obama, 4 McCain (I'm not counting RNC/DNC ads, just their own campaign ads)

August: 5 Obama, 5 McCain   

September: 1 Obama, 4 McCain (hilariously, one of the misleading ads cites FactCheck.org itself)

That's 9 Obama, 14 McCain. Now, that's part of why I think McCain has lost his moral compass--because he's approving more ads that are purposely misleading. (There's a hole in my methodology here: what we really need is a site that lists ads that candidates run that are perfectly honest so that we can see percentages, not just amounts.)

But this isn't just a quantitative feeling--as you were remarking, there's a gut instinct involved too, and I think some of McCain's recent ads are really low blows--the kind of cheap shots an honorable man should not approve. Like that one about the sex-education for kindergarteners which was talked about here, which I also thought was really cunning (to show a smiling Obama while talking about sex and kindergarteners was a nice piece of manipulation) but really despicable.

It's also almost totally wrong, as per the FactCheck.org article on it: "It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate" (http://www.factcheck...).

(One last shout-out to FactCheck.org: there's also a page for three nights of the RNC, and only one page for the DNC, which does make the RNC look like the party that's more willing to lie it's way into office.) 

Now, all this isn't to say that Obama's record is spotless--far from it. But as you said, lesser of two evils--and if I've added up my sums correctly, the lesser of two evils is Obama (with his 9 misleading ads to McCain's 14).

(And no worries about ignoring some questions--it's not like this is our job, right? It just feels like that sometimes... )

Okay, a short digression on taxes: you say that the rich pay their fair share, but who gets to decide what "fair" is? I mean, income tax is a relatively new thing, speaking in geological time, right? Once upon a time, there was no income tax, and robber barons ruled the Earth. Also, there was no penicillin. But actually, a lot of those rich robber barons--well, at least a few of them--did give back a lot of money to their communities. So, I agree with you in theory this much--there's nothing in the constitution that says the rich have to give to the poor--but on the other hands, there's nothing that says what they're giving already is "fair."

Oh, the Obama selective service thing, I remember reading something
about it--didn't the article here say he couldn't have signed up when
he graduated, he would've had to wait until it was reinstated... 45
days later?

I normally reread my posts, but I'm far too tired--if there are mistakes of one sort or another, well, be merciful as well as just.

goodnight.