Questioning Obama's terrorist associations, which is akin to questioning his patriotism, which is therefore bad. Or something.

“The question now is, will Barack Obama immediately call on the University of Illinois to release all of the records they are currently withholding to shed further light on Senator Obama’s relationship with this unrepentant terrorist?”

—McCain spokesman Brian Rogers

I was happy when dKos and their "conservative" partner Andrew Sullivan claimed McCain lied about his Vietnam captivity. McCain often seems to believe his own crap about civility and such in politics.

But when an opponent pisses him off, he goes for the jugular, in a "dirty" way. I don't think it's dirty. But he would normally call this sort of thing dirty himself. It becomes not-dirty when his opponents, or their supporters, do dirty stuff themselves.

So thanks, Andrew Sullivan! You successfully made Bill Ayers, Bernie Dohrn, and Obama's long and fast friendship with them an issue.

Posted by: Ace at 01:50 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

If, like me, you often find yourself wondering "Just how would Paul McCartney handle a situation like Russia's ongoing aggression in Georgia?" then this is the post for you.

For while it is easy to dismiss Sir Paul as a light thinker, more eager to talk about the creative benefits of marijuana than of Global Realpolitik, I can assure you that such a notion is misguided.

After all, as a member of the Beatles, Macca demonstrated that he did, indeed, possess the kind of Foreign Policy acumen that directs the outcomes of internation affairs on a daily basis.

As evidence, I give you the chorus to the Beatles' classic track "Back in the USSR." Written by McCartney in 1968, I would suggest it offers a clear view of the ongoing crisis that is applicable even today.

So how would the fabbest of the fab four approach the problem? Like so:

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out

They leave the west behind

And Moscow girls make me sing and shout

That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

So, applying the McCartney Doctrine to the present situation:

Ukraine is pretty awesome because they have hot chicks that make European and American women look like girls. Score one for Julia Tymoshenko and the Orange revolution!

Sadly, however, it would appear that for all the hot chicks in the Ukraine, the Chicks in Moscow are even hotter. Applying the McCartney Doctrine, then, allows Putin to steamroll Kiev. Think of it as natural selection. Of the hot.

Ultimately, however, it is Georgia that never leaves Macca's mind. Undoubtedly the women of Tbilisi must, then, be the ultimate in "keeping their comrades warm."

So, a further application of the McCartney Doctrine would ensure granting Georgia immediate NATO membership, weapons, and tactical and logistical support to protect their most important assets from defilement by the Russian Bear.

To sum up: Georgia > Russian > Ukraine.

Is it a perfect doctrine? Not hardly.

But did it give me an excuse to link a photo of Julia Tymoshenko? Yeah, yeah, yeah!

And, that, my friends, if really what this whole post was all about.

Posted by: Jack M. at 01:22 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember when Greedo suddenly shot first, missing, somehow, from like one meter away?

Yeah. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:22 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Just a big old round-up from Allah, while I write about D&D.

Biggest stuff:

* Russia's idea of a cease-fire apparently includes territorial annexation -- and not even of the disputed provinces in question. Annexation of undisputed Georgian territory as well:

A ranking Russian military official today said Moscow plans to establish 18 long-term checkpoints inside Georgian territory, including at least eight within undisputed Georgian territory outside the pro-Russian enclave of South OssetiaÂ…

“The president ordered us to stop where we were,” he said. “We are not pulling out and pulling back troops behind this administrative border into the territory of South Ossetia.”

* Condi once again baits Russia by saying "it's not 1988" anymore. Last time it was "it's not 1969 anymore." I think this is especially provocative because, remember, Russia is massively insecure and angry that it's not either 1969 or even 1988 anymore. Putin has called Russia's lost of empire the greatest tragedy in history (or something), and obviously he pines for the days of the Iron Curtain and the "Near Abroad" under Soviet boots. Condi Rice keeps saying "Russia doesn't have an empire anymore," and Putin's response can only be "Yes, I know, I'm seeing about that."

* Russia has halted cooperation with NATO, whatever cooperation that was.

* The Russian Foreign Minister tells us bluntly to choose Russia or Georgia. Easy call, and I'm not just being a kneejerk twit. I'm aware that Russia is nuclear armed and still wants to throw its weight around. I'm also aware that Russia has been acting mostly contrary to our interests since Putin became the new Czar. Russia's "cooperation" with us seems limited to asking for a pass as they ethnically cleanse Chechnya and Georgia. What intelligence they provide to us about Al Qaeda and other terrorists has to be balanced against the very likely threat that, just as during the Cold War, Russia is covertly funding and encouraging these terrorists.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

A blog called RPGDigest:

I am thoroughly disgusted with the comments of Mr. Goldfarb [linking Goldfarb's recent crack about D&D players].

I am further to the right, politically, than John McCain. IÂ’m also a Dungeons and Dragons player. I donÂ’t know why Mr. Goldfarb felt the need to connect liberals with D&D, but his comments were ill-informed. Most of the D&D players I know arenÂ’t liberals. In fact, most of them donÂ’t live in their mothersÂ’ basements, either.

There are more than 1 million gamers in the United States. IÂ’m glad to know that Mr. McCainÂ’s lead is so pronounced that he can alienate this segment of the population.

As for me, I wonÂ’t be voting for John McCain in November, certainly not as long as Mr. Goldfarb remains on staff.

Okay, just so everyone knows what's going on: My personal "spat" with Goldfarb is entirely contrived for humorous effect. And Goldfarb, once I demanded an apology (okay, once I joking suggested he write a humorous apology), wrote back thus:

If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.

That was an apology for his first D&D joke, he's now made a second, but come on.

Obviously this guy knows his way around a d20. He looks like the sort of guy most comfortable viewing the world over the top of a Dungeon Masters Screen. The sort of guy who carries 4d6 in his pocket "just in case." The sort of guy who still remembers the name of his Top Secret character ("Brock Cordite") and his weapon of choice (12mm gyrojet with plutonium "hot rounds").

Although -- while I'm kidding -- other people seem pissed off.

And, just to razz him some more, I have to say it's pretty bold for a political blogger to play the "dork" card on anyone. That's like RenFair groupie telling her boyfriend-slash-liegelord, "Let's be practical about this."

Then again, his girlfriend's cute. I guess he thinks that's like a +5 Periapt of Protection.

Not in an Anti-Magic Field, Michael. Not in an Anti-Magic Field.

It's Not Just the Crime, It's the Hypocrisy! Slublog says he was passed this incriminating photograph by a mystery woman calling herself Lucy Ramirez (who also passed the fake TANG documents to Bill Burkett).

Michael Goldfarb preparing to again slam D&D players,
or, as he knows them, "My Thursday Night Crew."
He's thinking about really nailing them this time--
that's right, Owlbears.

How Silly Can You Get? Over at Pandagon, one of Amanda "Hot Sticky Loads of the Lord" Marcotte's cobloggers has posted this "spat." The post and many of the comments are humorous (but not as funny as our stuff, natch), but some people seem to be taking this... a bit too seriously.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 1551 words, total size 10 kb.

The last tidbit in the post is the clincher.

Well, not a clincher, really. But it seems Obama's running mate will be Evan Bayh.

Who voted in favor of the War in Iraq.

Obama's attempt to lend himself foreign policy experience by osmosis has led him to select a man who, in his figuring, voted in favor of the worst foreign policy blunder of the past century.

Just to get it out of the way early, I question Evan Bayh's patriotism.

This is a boring, safe choice. So my not-really-serious prediction about the collapsing Obama choosing Hillary seems wrong.

Despite a Zogby poll showing Obama falling by a net 15 points, going from a 47-40 advantage to a 46-41 deficit.

As Hot Air notes (and we all know), Zogby's polls are... interesting. We all suspect, as the Freepers say, he adds "secret sauce" to the polls, weighting on things it's very dangerous to weight on (party identification, for example), and thus showing more dramatic swings and bigger leads than other, more cautious pollsters.

But this is another poll showing a big swing in favor of McCain and against Obama. Something has obviously happened. Obama's lost -- oh, let's just divide by two -- somewhere between 5 and 8 net points over a month or two.

Obama probably should be making a dramatic, high-impact choice for Veep. And McCain should probably be making a safe, don't-rock-the-boat choice. Obama didn't, and I'm guessing McCain won't.

Obama Denies Indiana Trip: Hm.

DrewM. thinks it's dangerous for Obama to lie like that, even in this sort of situation, where lying is, as in poker, more acceptable.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama's theme this week: I'm a Tough Guy and we won't get rolled again.

"I have never suggested and never will that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics and personal ambition," Obama said. "I have not suggested it because I believe he genuinely wants to serve America's national interests. Now it is time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same. Let me be clear-I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain."

A day earlier, Senator McCain told the same conference that Senator Obama had put his own political ambitions ahead of the national interest by trying, in McCain's words, to legislate failure in Iraq.

Truth is a defense to libel.

McCain says he's not questioning Obama's patriotism, merely his judgment.

I won't insult you by suggesting that's precisely true.

But what else can one make of someone who is still hellbound to lose a war even when it's nearly won? Obama's position was defensible when the war seemed (for some, with some good reason) to be unwinnable. Now it appears to be not just winnable, but rather difficult to lose, but damnit, Obama is still going to do his level-best to lose it.

And largely because he's captive to a revanchist left who craves defeat in Iraq like a heroin addict craves his next injection.

He is elevating his personal political needs far, far above the national interest. I'd say he's doing a rather good job of questioning his patriotism without any need of help from McCain.

Like clockwork, TPM claims that the media is giving McCain a "pass" on all this terrible patriotism-questioning:

This bears repeating a thousand times: The national press is basically giving McCain a pass on the McCain campaign's double-talk about Obama's patriotism. McCain, after all, has repeatedly said that Obama would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. McCain also said -- just this week, in fact -- that Obama's desire to lose in Iraq was driven entirely by "ambition."

And finally, the McCain campaign sent out to reporters those remarks by Joe Lieberman, in which Lieberman said Obama hasn't always put his country first. That constitutes an official campaign endorsement of Lieberman's assertion.

These facts deserve to be mentioned in every story about McCain's remarks today. But they will get scattered mention, if that.

In addition to the fact that McCain isn't being held accountable for these glaring inconsistencies in his own claims, he's also getting a pass on the assertions of his own surrogates from the very same press corps that aggressively held the Dem candidates accountable for every syllable that came out of their surrogates' mouths during the Dem primary.

I clicked on that from Google News, and knew, before the article popped up, it would be authored by Greg Sergeant, who is one of the most braindead, kneejerk idiots out there on the leftosphere.

So is the press giving a "pass" to McCain on this? Well, Newsbusters actually does what Sergeant doesn't bother to do: They watch the news and digest it, providing quotes and facts.

Is this a "pass"?

“Patriot games,” CBS Evening News anchor Harry Smith teased, “Barack Obama fights back.” Viewers then heard a clip of Obama before the VFW: “I will let no one question my love of this country.” Reporter Dean Reynolds described how “Obama is pivoting toward a more combative style, rebuking the Republicans for habitually turning differences over policy into questions about patriotism, a habit he said John McCain has readily embraced.”

Yes, Greggie, the media is giving McCain a pass, except for the national CBS and NBC broadcasts scolding him.

Greg Sergeant, and the rest of the Media Matters-type Soros brigade, has what might be called media bias envy. These idiots know damn well the media leans left, but they seem to envy the right's David vs. Goliath status, so they are forever claiming the "conservative" media is stacked against them. They're not really attacking the media-- they're deliberately defending them. The media usually defends charges of liberal bias by claiming "some on the right criticize us, and some on the left do too, so that must mean we're getting it basically right."

And it's the likes of Greg Sergeant who knowingly offer up spurious claims of "conservative bias" so that his media buddies can offer this exact defense.

Doing a media-bias post is very easy for someone on the right. It's so easy it often feels cheap. But cheap and easy though it may be, it's, you know, usually right.

Greg Sergeant's absurd claims do not have that saving grace. He tosses around kneejerk claims of "conservative media bias" without evidence or citation because they're easy posts to write. Easy, cheap, and wrong, but they serve their purpose. He and his lefty buddies get to pretend they're brave outsiders besieged by a hostile press, and the press he defends and loves gets to pretend they're equal-opportunity offenders as regards bias.

Everyone wins, except the truth, but Soros isn't seeding money to the left to produce the truth.

Perhaps Greggie should ponder how the MSM just happened to seize upon the notion that "questioning one's patriotism" is the greatest political offense possible. It's fair game, it seems, to question a candidate's intelligence, sanity, sobriety, humanity, and compassion. The media never squeals when a lefty politician claims Republicans conspire to make the lives of the poor more difficult, or to destroy cute fuzzy animals and noble trees just to make a buck for their fat-cat friends.

Those are rather deadly -- and personal -- charges. And yet they're perfectly fair. We never hear the media accusing a Democrat of "engaging in the typical game of questioning Republicans' basic compassion and humanity for their fellow man," or for their fellow earth-creatures.

How is it that patriotism came to be the one virtue it is impermissible to question?

Could it be, Greggie -- just spit-ball this with me -- that "questioning patriotism" hurts Democrats whereas all the others tend to hurt Republicans, and that is why questioning patriotism -- and questioning no other virtue or passion -- has become, in the media's eyes, the one impermissible tactic in campaigning?

"Questioning patriotism" is impermissible only because the MSM claims it to be, and they claim it to be such precisely because Democratic politicians and the leftist commentariat insisted it should be from 2001 to the present.

How come the media gives the left -- and itself, of course -- a "pass" on that, Greggie?

Oh... Bear in mind this is the same TPM that breaks out its "racial attack decoder ring," as Allah calls it, every time a Republican opens his mouth.

And of course TPM and the leftosphere is usually able to push these charges right into the MSM -- into the NYT, the "Paper of Record" -- within 24 hours of making them.

Yeah, the media is really stacked against you guys all right.

Am I to understand that "questioning patritotism" is off-limits whereas constantly claiming someone is a racist is perfectly acceptable grist for the mill?

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 1222 words, total size 8 kb.

All the major players are already slotted so it's either a wild card or there's no correlation between having a scheduled speaking slot and being the VP. My guess is it's the latter.

The one person I think W3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr">this list does eliminate is Rudy. He's now scheduled to be the Keynote Speaker on Tuesday.

Monday: Lieberman, Schwarzenegger, The Dark Lord and Master Cheney, Laura Bush and then the President.

Tuesday: Rudy, Huckabee, Ridge, Palin, and a bunch of others including Teh Fred.

Wednesday: Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Romney, Cindy McCain, Bobby Jindal, and the VP nominee.

Thursday: Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, and of course John McCain.

Does that leave anyone who has been floated as a possible VP choice?

Actually Rob Portman isn't on the list and as commenter "pistolero" points out neither is Eric Cantor. That might just be because it's a partial list and the Star Trib doesn't take a couple of Congressmen seriously or it might be something else.

The list is from the GOP convention website and it doesn't include either of those two, so who knows. Remember, the announcement is supposed to be made in Ohio, a week from Friday. Portman represented southern Ohio in Congress.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:56 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday Joe Biden tried to tamp down speculation that he would not be Obama's VP pick by saying, "I'm not the guy". Many took that to mean, he was not the pick. Turns out that wasn't what Biden meant.

A Biden source told us not to read too much into his "IÂ’m-not-the-guy" statement, saying he was pretending not to be Biden -- rather than stating he wasnÂ’t going to be ObamaÂ’s VP.

Pretending not to be himself? Oh my, an Obama/Biden ticket would be the best.

Let's face it, we don't want Biden on the Democratic ticket. We NEED him on that ticket.

In other Veepstakes news...Joe Lieberman is now scheduled to speak at the RNC Convention. This confirms what many have speculated for awhile now and it might be the last straw for Democrats to kick him out of his Homeland Security chairmanship. And no, even if he caucuses with Republicans, the Democrats keep control of the Senate thanks to a deal cut when they organized the Senate after the 2006 elections.

Meanwhile, Lieberman is still being floated as a possible running mate for McCain.

As Ace blogged yesterday, he thinks McCain's standing in the polls (which I think it's safe to say is better than just about anyone expected at this point) makes the need to go for the game changing long ball, which a Lieberman selection would represent, unnecessary.

My fear is it will make McCain comfortable and lead him to think he can go with his gut. Let's face it, when faced with a fork in the road, McCain tends to take the one marked "Maverick Way".

I really hope Ace is right.

[Update PA]
AP has declared Lieberman to be a "prick", so I guess that settles it.

...His top contenders are said to include...and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:02 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:33 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.