Of course he lied.

What is apparent is that Joe Lieberman was so shaken by his senatorial primay loss that he has still not reconciled himself to it, or ogtten over his bitterness.

Add to that the fact that the Bush White House, in typical cynicism, abandoned the Republican candidate and shifted its support to Senator Lieberman. In return Senator Joe has made himself a vassal of the White House, and the Republican party.

The White House will collect on Senator Lieberman's "Campaign Debt" at the Republican National Convention.

The Democrats might as well kick him out of the caucus come January. However my betting is that Senator Joe will beat them to the punch and re-register as a Republican after the November elections (he has more value to the White House as a "Democrat for McCain" than as a "Newly-turned-Republican for McCain".

Then we will be trated to three months of Republican rule in the Senate, as they rush through bills to protect George W. Bush and lock into law the Bush Agenda for the next president.

If the New Yorker had printed an equivalently "satirical" cover on John McCain, intimating he tolerated flag burning, we would have resolutions in Congress condemning it by lunchtime.

However, since the target is Barak Obama, we are treated to the "can't you take a joke" lines that usually accompany an Ann Coulter screed.

I guess we can now add The New Yorker to the list of media outlets that constitute John McCain's "Base".

The Washington Post censors a cartoon because it makes fun of Dick Cheney. And we still have to endure pundits referring to a "Libaral Media" every time some information comes out that displeases the Bush White House.

Are our "powerful" elite so afraid of the retribution of George W. Bush that they are taking thses kinds of steps?

apparently the answer is that we either have a Conservative media now or our "Liberal" media is living in a constant state of fear.

Which is it?

Re: "Granted, its scary stuff, but would liberals have been pissed at Lincoln too?"

Why do Conservatives love to compare George w. bush toAbraham Lincoln?

George W. Bush is nowhere near an Abraham Lincoln. and everyone knows it. and presenting George W. Bush with near dictatorial powers will not result in some sort of "American Nirvana". It will result in an America that stands for torture as official governmentpolicy. For failure to capture the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. For putting Karl Rove in charge of our government.

That is NOT ABraham Lincoln, no matter how much Conservatives try to pretend that the two men are equals.

Re: " Is there anything he can do to get his campaign back on track?"

Yes. all the McCains have to do is give another barbecue for his Base (the media), and the chorous' of "Principled maverick" will come gushing out from every reporter.

That is how John McCain plans to coast intothe White House, with softball media coverage and excuses provided for him all the way.

It is smart politics when dealing with a media that still cannot bring itself to actually challenge the Bush White House on torture, failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and ignroing the Consitution at every turn.

With that kind of free pass, what are a few erratic comments?

Re: "Amazingly, flights from this little airport are often cheaper than the mid-sized Wichita airport."

The Federal Government runs a program that "maintains" air swervice to small airports. The subsidy runs about $400 per ticket. And that is BEFORE the cost of security.

And those of us in cities have to endure how "we" are "living off the government".

Re: "4. You've said that you have a strategy to capture Osama bin Laden, but it's something that can only be done in secret by the president. Instead of waiting to be president yourself, why haven't you just told President Bush what your strategy is?"

I missed that one.

Is that like Richard Nixon's "Secret Plan To End The Vietnam War"?

Re: "It means that when a bunch of Americans are busteling around the store and breaking stuff, Iraq and Irand might band together as Shia against the crusaders, but after we leave, the age old cultural differnces that seperated the two in the first place will likely raise their head."

Very true.

However, as long as the US maintains its 100-year presence, the Christian Crusaders will keep the Shia allied against us.

John McCain is obviously waiting for word from the White House as to what his position will be.

Why does the Iraqi leadership "want the terrorists to win"?

Re: "Do you folks really think Nov. 4 will get here before martial law?"

It depends on the polls, and by how much Barak Obama is leading.

If it looks like the results can be skewed by some judicious "working" of the votes by Diebold and Justice Department can block the voting of sufficient African-Americans, then the Bush White House will forgoe that option.

If however, Barak Obama is strongly in the lead, and it looks as though Republicans will not keep their fillibuster strength in the Senate (including Joe Lieberman, who will switch his registarion on command from the White House if necessary), then "Bush's Third Term" might commence with George W. Bush rather than John McCain.

Re: "Based on your pervious comments, I'd say you can help fill those blanks in. Sad that you never have as much "insight" about McCain's problems, isn't it?"

The problem with McCain's "problem" is that the reporting media, which John McCain refers to as "his base" can be counted on to give Saint John Free Pass on any of his problems: reporting them for only one day, or not at all, while simultaneously repeating every negative about Barak Obama for weeks.

After all, John McCain is a "Maverick" and "Straight Talker", isn't he?