Sorry to say it....

But John McCain outright disgusts me.

Here is a post from Mark Levin on National Review Online that outlines the reasons that any American, let alone a conservative American should say "NO THANK YOU!" These were all good reasons prior to Thursday night, when John decided to pee on our shoes, & tell us it's raining.

Thursday started with yet another liberal media endorsement for John, this time from the New York Times. Read it! It's a wonderful outline of how liberals think John is liberal enough for them. I'd also suggest you look here to see why the same people like Hill/Bill/ary. When we start looking to the likes of Alan Colms to tell us who is the best Republican candidate, we are in trouble.

Then came the Thursday night debate, Tim Russet asks:

"Senator McCain, you have said Repeatedly, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' is it a problem for your campaign...?"

McCain, the guy who supposedly has a monopoly on integrity, replies:

“I don’t know where you got that quote from, I’m very well versed in economics. I was there at the Reagan Revolution.”

Unfortunately for McCain, more people have access to the internet today than in 2000. Here is the link to the Wall Street Journal article where he said in November 2005:

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

By the way, in the same article, we can read his feelings on the Bush tax cuts which he now says he supports:

But Mr. McCain is no antitax supply-sider himself. He grandstanded against the Bush capital-gains and dividend tax cuts and even co-sponsored an amendment with Tom Daschle to scuttle the reduction in the highest income-tax rates. Why? "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy and I still do. I want to cut the taxes on the middle class." Even when I confront him with emphatic evidence that those tax cuts have been an economic triumph and have increased revenues, he is unrepentant and defends his 'no' vote by falling back on class-warfare type thinking: "We have a wealth gap in this country, and that worries me."

You may be asking 'Oh, but Mr. Shirt, that was 14 months ago, perhaps he's educated himself?' Well, on December 18, 2007, a bit more than one month ago, McCain told The Boston Globe:

'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book.'

Wow! In 13 months time, he decided to educate himself by procuring a book! Note, he did not say "I'm Reading Greenspan's book." Pure silliness! Besides, I don't think that Greenspan meant for his book to be an economics primer. McCain could have started with actually reading Economics in One Lesson, or The Wealth of Nations... or for that matter On the Wealth of Nations! Ronald Reagan read these & many more, he understood them, & he based his philosophy on them. Sure McCain was in the Republican Party during The Reagan Revolution, but apparently he didn't understand what was happening around him.

The media, who want us to nominate McCain, have let this slide. The Clinton Machine will not let this slide. Unfortunately, this is typical McCain. He does his thing, then he changes his story to match the image he is trying to pass off that day. Then when we question him, we're told that we are wrong... we don't understand... we are deliberately trying to malign him & distort his record. No John, we are pointing to the truth.

I know I'm a little late to the punch on this. I could have wrote this on Friday night, but I had to wait. My first reaction was, this "man of integrity" is a liar. Seems harsh, so I decided to temper my position with time.

But then Saturday came. After John decided that maybe leaving that economics gaff out there in the ether wasn't a good idea, he decided to change the conversation back to the War. He did this by claiming Mitt Romney advocated a timetable for pullout of Iraq. Here is a link to McCain's Statement, in which he also claims that Romney has since changed his mind, due to the success of The Surge, for which McCain has tried to claim sole credit.

The problem is, this is just not true! Here is what was said on Good Morning America on April 3, 2007:

QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.

Remember grammar class? When they gave you a sentence, & asked you to identify which words were the subject, the object & the verb? How about those reading comprehension tests where you had to read a brief snippet, then Identify the topic & what was said about it?

The topic is: timetable for pull out; the question is: would you veto a timetable for pull out; the answer is: Well, of course. What's all that stuff about setting milestones & timetables in private? Um, because victory requires a plan, a plan requires goals.

What's wrong with telling PM al-Maliki, "Look, we want to be done with this by 2010, so you need to have your guys up to speed by 2009?" That's not a timetable for pull out, that is a goal for success.

If John McCain is saying he doesn't want to set goals in the war, perhaps we should begin to question his expertise in this subject too.

Is John McCain lying? He's at the very least being purposely deceptive. He is certainly not demonstrating "integrity".