Irony. Sweet, sweet irony. How I love thee.

Drudge just popped a story that Sen. John McCain (R-Media) is desperately trying to get the New York Times to spike a story and has hired DC "super lawyer" Bob Bennett (who you may remember from his defense of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinski saga) to aid his efforts.

Does the Times story allege McCain sired an Edwardsian love child? Nope.

Does it allege that McCain dealt drugs in his youth, like some claim about Obama? Nope.

Does it allege that McCain is failing to release records from the National Archives like both Clintons? Nope.

It apparently alleges that John McCain, the man who by his own account fate itself entrusted to save the country from the "Iron Triangle" of lobbyists and their corrupt money, granted special favors to...a lobbyist.

It could be the Keating 5 scandal all over again! Say it ain't so, Johnny Mac.

You mean even after you passed your "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, the Times has dirt on your dirty dealings with a, gasp, lobbyist! Saint John of Arizona, you have sullied your halo for 30 pieces of silver?

Evil is the path that leads to the dark side, Master Skywalker. I can't wait to read the Times story.

This should be an abject lesson for all Republicans. The media doesn't like you. The media will never like you. For all your maverick status, and all your embracing of the fashionable media driven issue of the day, they despise you.

And they will sink you when they can. It's no coincidence that at a time when McCain is making a comeback in places like New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, Iowa, that this story is leaked.

It doesn't even matter if it is true, really. The damage is done. Hell, this post is an example of how you will get beat up regardless of how this plays out.

It must hurt being hoisted on your own "retard", Johnny Mac. And if you really have been caught acting sketchy with some lobbyist that would truly be retarded.

I wasn't going to vote for you anyway. Now, I probably won't have to.

I am interested, though. If the Times is correct, what "flaw" in current law led to your downfall. What liberty encroaching legislation will you introduce now to attempt to salvage your own reputation?

Because, you admitted that CFR was introduced in part out of your "shame" at being implicated in the Keating 5 deal. What part of the Constitution must we now consider sacrificing to wash this stain off your rep?

UPDATE: The Drudge update indicates that the story is about McCain alledgedly giving a female telecom lobbyist (who has hired a lawyer too) access to write specific telecom legislation.

Heh..I guess we need to be on the lookout for the "CFR Amendments Act of 2008- Protecting Senators from the Special Influence of teh Sexy" next year.

Posted by: Jack M. at 08:07 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

Our pal Lipstick Dynamite went on a pretty neat trip by train across Canada this past summer. She's posted some really nice photos over at The Splitters.

No mooses (meese?). And (regrettably) no cheesecake.

But some pretty photos all the same.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 07:41 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

In the (at present inaccessible) comments of my last post, I was criticized for using scriptural references to criticize the pardoning history of former Governor Mike Huckabee. Such criticism, they said, was inappropriate in the context of a campaign, since Huckabee is running for a political office, not a spiritual one.

I certainly hope my critics are prepared to send similar messages of disapproval to the Huckabee campaign. When asked about his lack of campaign infrastructure as compared to the Romney and Thompson campaigns, this was his response:

There's nothing I can do about that other than use what resources we have and to try to tell the truth and get our message out there, but ultimately what I sense is happening - people everywhere will come to me, look me in the eye and say "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you that the weapons formed against you will not prosper." And you know I just have to deep down believe that there is just a hunger in this nation for truth. There is a hunger in this nation for authenticity. They want to necessarily vote for somebody because he's told everyone what a lousy guy the other one is.

Posted by: Slublog at 07:13 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Now that it's actually, you know, Thursday.

Remember the lock out rule, if you don't pick before tonight's game, you lose all of them.

Which might have turned out better for Slublog actually.

Down to that part of the season where teams that don't need to fight for it invite Jessica Simpson to come to the game, or some stupid shit. Criminy.

AoSHQI and AoSHQII top 5 standings:

1 PHenry 130
2 anotheranon 126
3 Mr_Wide_Stance 124
4 Slublog 122
5 Drew Bledsoe for HoF 121

Huh. No ties in the top 5 this week.

And remember, if you don't think too good, don't think too long.

UPDATE: BREAKING HARD! MUST CREDIT WISERBUD!!11! TODAY IS WEDNESDAY.

man, I'm so ready for this week to be over.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 06:43 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Now, this is a torture site.

"We discovered several (weapons) caches, a torture facility that had chains, a bed — an iron bed that was still connected to a battery — knives and swords that were still covered in blood as we went in to go after the terrorists in that area," said Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq.

The AP says that mass graves were found nearby. In all the operation discovered nine weapons caches, killed 24 insurgents, and detained 37.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:34 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

For not calling him an Islamic Manchurian Candidate. He then praised Obama, saying he's "exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be president of the United States, he's articulate, clean and fresh."

I might have gotten that quote wrong. It's early.

thanks to Cuffy Meigs

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 05:04 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

The final form of what some had labeled the "Veterans Disarmament Act" passed both the House and the Senate today after adjustments to reassure my senator, Tom Coburn, that veterans would not be unjustly denied gun ownership. The law's official title is the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

Prompted by the Virginia Tech University shootings, Congress yesterday approved legislation that would help states more quickly and accurately identify potential firearms buyers with mental health problems that disqualify them from gun ownership under federal law.

The deaths of 32 people in a shooting rampage by a mentally ill student on the Virginia Tech campus spurred Congress to address long-standing gaps in state records reporting that allowed the killer to purchase two guns.

President Bush is expected to sign it.

This is a difficult policy area. Should the Second Amendment's protection be absolute? Textually, there is no exception for depriving anyone of a firearm, not even prisoners. Of course, in practice we realize that the constitutional rights of citizens can and must be restricted in certain situations. When it comes to convicted felons, that curtailment is often imposed beyond the period of incarceration, depending on which jurisdiction tried the crime.

But what about for the mentally ill?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:46 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

Katie Couric got some pretty interesting answers from the presidential candidates today when she asked each this question:

Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

I was surprised at how varied the answers were. Only two Democrats answered that marital fidelity is a private matter (Clinton and Obama), something I expected from more of them. John McCain was the only candidate who seemed to flatly disapprove of the question; he responded that he doesn't judge other people that way. Everyone else replied explicitly or implicitly that voters would be justified in considering the issue when deciding on a president.

Of patent interest, Rudy Giuliani took the opportunity to once again call his previous extramarital adventures "mistakes" and ask for understanding:

Giuliani: Sure, I can. Absolutely. You know, they look the every single part of us. And the ... only thing I can say to people is I'm not perfect, you know? And I've made mistakes in my life. And that ... not just in that area. In other areas and I try to learn from it. I try to -- I feel sorry about them. I try to learn from them so I don't repeat them.

Sometimes I even repeat them and ... you try again. I mean, you ... so -- I have a, maybe a more generous view of human beings and a more generous view of life. I mean, it comes from growing up as a Catholic. I mean, we're all sinners. We're all struggling. We're all trying hard. We ask for forgiveness, and then we try to improve ourselves again. And I've -- relate to other people that way. Relate to the world that way.

John Edwards doesn't seem to be letting the recent rumors affect him, if this answer is anything to go by. I also think it's the best of those offered by all of the candidates:

Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with ... it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them.

...I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

Couric: So you think it's an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

Edwards: Yeah. But I don't think it's controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the ... stories we've all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don't think it controls the issue. But I think it's certain ... something reasonable for people to consider.

The question of fidelity should not be a make-or-break issue, not when so much is riding on such a limited field of competitors. Ideally, we would get a president who had never told a lie; but I'll settle for one who is an occasional fibber if it means winning the War on Terror, securing the borders, and appointing a Republican judiciary.

*That title is borrowed from a character out of one of G.R.R. Martin's Song of Fire & Ice novels. I admired it when I saw it, but have forgotten which book and which character. Do you agree with it?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:16 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

According to "a person close to [Rep. Tom] Tancredo," his major announcement tomorrow will be his withdrawal from the Republican contest for nomination. Hot Air and Politico had speculation that this would be the case.

I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

Fears about illegal immigration boosted Tancredo's profile, but it didn't translate into support as reflected by his low standing in national and state polls and his limited fundraising. In part, candidates such as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani usurped Tancredo's hardline stance on the issue, prompting the congressman to quip at one debate that "all I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo."

I'm not convinced that Romney or Giuliani have actually adopted Tancredo's position on illegal immigration; they certainly do better saying the right things (e.g. Romney's ad "Change Immigration"), but, like John McCain's belated adoption of "border security first," there is a gap between their rhetoric and their prior actions.

Back in May, Tancredo said it well:

I am glad to see conversions. I'm glad they happen. But I must tell you, I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines.

I haven't been a supporter of Tancredo, and I tended to poke fun at him for his one-note campaign. But I am still grateful for his service, and I'm hoping that he chooses to run for Colorado's open Senate seat when Wayne Allard retires next year. Good luck, Congressman.

UPDATE: Tancredo's wife says, "Not so fast."

She said media outlets “jumped the gun” by reporting Wednesday afternoon that her husband definitely had decided to quit the race.

Earlier in the day, Tancredo told FoxNews, “I will neither confirm nor deny that report.” But he also added, “I wouldn’t have a press conference if I didn’t have anything to say.”

Jackie Tancredo said the situation has “changed hourly,” and on Wednesday night there still was a “slim” chance that her husband would continue his uphill battle, which now finds him near the bottom of the polls in Iowa and nationally.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:32 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

Roy Blunt got it wrong, originally. Michelle Malkin repeated it, but with a question mark.

I myself included no question mark.

I was just wrong and didn't even bother to check at all. Michelle has the correct story here. Apologies.

They're still gutting the fence, though.

Thanks to Matt for alerting me.

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.