You can't make this stuff up. John McCain to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 18th, 2000 (via Daily Kos):

Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.

"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."
"
McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, was questioned about the language because of a story last month in the Nation magazine reporting his continued use of the slur.

Because what this country really needs is an avowed, unrepentant racist as President.

Update: A phone statement from Councilman John C. Liu:

"This was highly offensive in 2000, and it's offensive today. For a would-be President, the statute of limitations for a slur like this is longer than eight years. I think everyone can understand how a POW comes to hate his captors. Hopefully, however, he's come to understand that "gooks" is one of the most offensive terms anyone can possibly use about Asian-Americans."

Do you recall John McCain’s war-loving-lyrical response to the challenge of getting along with Iran? (See also this Moveon Youtube.)

Well, a more pressing question might be whether George Bush & his allies in Israel will pull an “October surprise” on our election process. Imagine if you will, some “Gulf of Tonkin” incident, some “Weapons of Mass Distraction” science fiction, some “supporters of cross-border terrorism” lies. Would the Republican Party benefit from such an attack? Would McBush-Cain strategists think so? Certainly McCain’s only hole-card is his claim to being tough on terrorists.

July 1, Update Having so consistently lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you think the liar-in-chief or his servants would be truthful about Iran? Tuesday's Washington Post reports the CIA ignored facts and analyses which showed Iran long ago suspended its nuclear weapons program

A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb. The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.

Laura Rozen at Mother Jones collects snippets of expert observers' views which are really worth reading. Their take-away? Most of them think military action against Iran is unlikely. But –

Seymour Hersh has another blockbuster in The New Yorker. Cross-border terrorist George W. Bush has sent US forces to fight Iran. Hersh’s must-read essay which appears in this coming week’s issue points out that the clandestine US actions against Iran “are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.”

Go ahead and vote for him, PUMAs.

No surprises here: Barack Obama wipes the floor with John McCain in the newest Quinnipiac poll.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, has pulled even among white voters with Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican contender, and now tops Sen. McCain 50 - 36 percent in New York State, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Sen. Obama gets 42 percent of white votes, to 43 percent for Sen. McCain. Black voters back the Democrat 87 - 6 percent. Obama leads 59 - 29 percent among voters under age 45 and 45 - 40 among voters over 45; 45 - 40 percent among men and 53 - 32 percent among women.

This compares to a 47 - 39 percent Obama lead over McCain in an April 18 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton still was in the race. In that survey, white voters backed McCain 48 - 38 percent.

In this latest survey, New York State voters say 48 - 42 percent that Obama should not pick Sen. Clinton as his running mate. Democrats support the idea 53 - 35 percent, while Republicans oppose it 62 - 27 percent and independent voters oppose it 53 - 41 percent.

The issues agenda is equally clear, in what could become a roadmap to the state legislative elections:

As John McCain is lying to try and get Jews to vote for him, it might be a good idea to review the facts about Obama and McCain from a Jewish perspective. This comes from the National Jewish Democratic Council:

OBAMA STANDS WITH PROGRESSIVE VALUES ON DOMESTIC ISSUES

• He supports reproductive rights and will uphold Roe v. Wade.
• Obama cosponsored the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
• He will provide affordable access to health insurance for every American.
• He has fought for increased investment in renewable fuels.

OBAMA PERFECT PRO-ISRAEL VOTING RECORD

The pro-Israel community has always used voting records to determine whether a candidate is “pro-Israel.”
• He has voted in favor of foreign aid to Israel every time.
• He has signed onto numerous pro-Israel letters and resolutions.
• When in the State Senate, he cosponsored a bill authorizing the state of Illinois to invest in Israel bonds.

OBAMA BELIEVES ISRAEL’S SECURITY IS PARAMOUNT

I'll freely admit that Steve Harrison, the Democratic candidate in NY-13, is one of my favorite challengers in this cycle. Yesterday, his team emailed over a press release that underscores the essential rightness of that assessment. It appears some controversy over endorsements is brewing in that race, and he's handling it exactly as he should.

Harrison is running against the only republican sent by the City to Washington, one Vito Fossella. Recently, Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine and currently otherwise in some hot water for what can fairly be described as over-zealous advocacy for Hillary Clinton's Presidential ambitions, hosted a fundraiser for Harrison and endorsed his candidacy. Unfortunately, she also recently made remarks to the effect that John McCain's military service does not automatically qualify him for the Presidency.

While that seems a fairly unobjectionable statement - military service alone does not qualify someone for political office, though it's not a detriment, either - apparently, some veterans have demanded that Harrison renounce her support for being, as the phrase goes, anti-military.

In the past, of course and usually to the grim displeasure of Progressive activists, Democratic candidates have tripped over themselves to buy into (and thereby reinforce the legitimacy of) frames like this, abjectly groveling that no, they don't hate America, mom, the troops, apple pie, and so on. Harrison isn't doing that. Instead, he said this:

I honor and admire the service of Senator John McCain and I always have. I believe that his service to country and grace under confinement are factors, among many, that can be weighed in determining who is best qualified to be our next president. But, as was true with the Democratic nominee in 2004, military service is only one of many factors to be considered. If military service were the sole determinant of presidential timber, then George Bush is unqualified for the position. Like Gloria Steinem, I believe that both Democratic presidential candidates are better qualified to lead our nation than the Arizona Senator.. But the fact that we do not support Sen. McCain's candidacy is not inconsistent with honor for his service.

That statement neatly reframes the issue at hand, creating a distinction between the respect owed by a public figure to the service and sacrifice of another, and the political opposition to the political goals of the person that brought the sacrifice in question. In a district with an unusually high percentage of veterans - for New York City - that's a smart move, and it's also the right and decent thing to do.

Meanwhile, however, the question of endorsers opens a huge can of worms for republicans in this district and the rest of this state, a fact tied in to the Presidential candidacy of John McCain, which Vito Fossella has endorsed, underlining his endorsement by campaigning with the Arizona Senator in Manhattan and New Jersey prior to his final securing of the nomination. John McCain is supported by people who subscribe to a particularly virulent strain of anti-Catholic bigotry, support he eagerly sought and refuses to disavow.

There is yet another news article in yesterday's 1/29/07 Village Voice newspaper on Jay Savino and Fred Brown.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0805,barrett,78995,6.html

Fred Brown, a Bronx delegate for Giuliani and former school-board member, was convicted of using the school district's printing press to produce a 100-page political journal in the '80s. Asked by the Voice about the 13 liens and judgments against him totaling more than $100,430—including three from the IRS for $32,986—Brown said he didn't know what they were about, adding that he was scheduled "to meet with the IRS in February." Brown conceded that he lives at 355 South End Avenue in Battery Park City, even though he is running as a delegate from the address he's registered at in the Bronx. "My [previous] apartment at 375 South End was destroyed on 9/11," he explained.

Okay, the 2008 cycle is officially in fullest swing. As Mole333 points out below, Rudy Giuliani has degradingly enough accepted the endorsement of one Pat Robertson. The Albany Project points out that, yes, that's the very Pat Robertson who agreed with Jerry Falwell that

I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...

...were responsible for 9/11.

Meanwhile, John McCain emails over that he's secured the endorsement of Sam Brownback, wingnut of Kansas. Brownback is useful to McCain's own right flank, obviously, and he can make statements like this:

John McCain also represents the values that are the core of our Republican party. He has spent a lifetime standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24 year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn. We do not have to abandon our principles of life, faith and family to defeat the Democrats next fall; we can stand with John McCain. [Emphasis added]

Life, faith and family. Now, who could Senator Brownback possibly have in mind when he says that these noble principles need not be abandoned?

Heh. Stay tuned.

I swear. John McCain once seemed reasonable to me. But he has become the worst, most glibly foolish war monger in the running, it seems. From MoveOn.org (the group that has recently teamed up with VoteVets.org to give our veterans more of a voice):

At a campaign stop on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain was asked what to do about Iran. His response? He sang "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann."

Seriously.

He says it was a joke, but the bottom line is that it is reckless saber-rattling against Iran at a time when tensions are high. Will you help us counter his message on TV?

McCain is laughing at the idea of unilaterally attacking Iran.

McCain is, in effect, laughing at this:

and this: (from the New England Journal of Medicine via The Memory Hole)

Because THAT is what his Iraq Escalation/Iran attack would produce more of. Dead and wounded American soldiers. And for what? NEITHER Iraq under Hussein nor Iraq have had any dealings with al-Qaeda. Why aren't we fighting al-Qaeda. While McCain wants to expand the Iraq quagmire into Iran, al-Qaeda is also expanding, entering Iraq thanks to us, expanding in Somalia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco...and extremists are taking power in Bahrain. And McCain wants to make it all worse.

Remember last year? The prevailing MSM conventional wisdom was that the 2008 race would be a battle between two nationally known Senate heavyweights, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. A done deal, inevitable as the tides in fact; nothing to see here, move on.

Well, that's not working out so well, is it?

As I wrote on October 5th, 2006, here:

If you want an example of the mainstream media babbling on endlessly on what they believe the story should be, look no further than the endless obsession with New York's junior Senator. Two years before the first primary vote will be cast, Hillary is today portrayed as the all-but-crowned and inevitable Presidential nominee (as is John McCain for the other side, in a striking parallel that only makes the pattern clearer). The verdict of the elite chattering classes is in: Hillary it is, in a face-off against McCain – a nice, solid storyline that plays to all the things the media like to see in their coverage, such as high name recognition, easy clichés, and nice little cookie-cutter boxes to frame their articles. Just think of all the 'Can a woman be President?' stories already written – pure speculation (not to say useless wankery), but these stories practically write themselves and let you head out to The Hamptons that much earlier.

And this...

The GOP base has a better memory, to its credit, than the media think; in their eyes, McCain is first and foremost the author of McCain-Feingold, a founding member of the treacherous 'Gang of 14', and an advocate of various policies that may make the media love him, but produce outrage amongst the true believers. The simple storyline is that the base will overlook these treacheries (as they see them) as the Bush administration continues its slow-motion collapse.

Again, no. Rather, as the efforts to re-brand George Bush as a liberal (and thereby to insulate conservatism from his failure) suggest, the base will look for a dyed in the wool true believer – and that is not going to be the treacherous John McCain.

Well, here are some of today's headlines: