The DNC has placed a new attack add against presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz).  Not only does the add shamelessly show footage of American troops being killed in an IED attack in Iraq (which is why the add won't be shown here), but it is fundamentally dishonest as well.  They're claiming that John McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq.  Here's what McCain actually said to a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on January 3, 2008:

Make it a hundred... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

"As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed?"  That doesn't sound like 100 years of war to me...

When Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) questions the probable Democrat nominee Sen. Barack Obama's connections to an unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, his campaign only responds by attacking McCain for "smear politics," but does not refute the Illinois Senator's friendliness with Ayers.  He then went on to smear McCain for his positions on the economy and Iraq.  (Ironic?)

In fact, the only defense offered by Sen. Obama regarding his relationship with Ayers was during the recent debate in Pennsylvania:

“The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.”

I wonder if the American people will find Sen. Obama's association with a sitting United States Senator just as palatable as his friendship with Ayers; a man who told the New York Times in 2001, regarding his terrorist activities during the 1970's and '80's which took the lives of numerous police officers and civilians, "I don't regret setting bombs.  I feel we didn't do enough."

I'd say Obama needs to work on his moral equivalents.  Ayers is not a guy who simply made a controversial statement.  In fact, we're not concerned about his rhetoric at all!  Ayers blew up cops!

Last October, when presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) was asked why he does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, Obama responded:

Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

Well apparently keeping an overtly racist, anti-American pastor/mentor for twenty years and accusing rural Americans of being so "bitter" that they have to "cling to guns or religion," does not make for such a great "testimony" to his patriotism.

So ironically enough, Barack's lapel flag is back (Pennsylvania photo here), apparently a "substitute" for the "true patriotism" that his poor choice of company and elitist opinion of average Americans have proved he is lacking...

Socialist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that relations between his country and the U.S. could worsen if Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) wins the White House.

Remember when Democrats pretended to be incensed when Chavez called Bush "the Devil" at the U.N. podium and then "an alcoholic and a sick man" when he appeared with liberal actor Danny Glover in Harlem (granted, their "anger" was delayed a day so that they had enough time to run a couple of focus groups to find out if they should actually be mad)?  I wonder if they will be equally strong in rejecting Chavez's endorsement of their candidates.

Rasmussen Reports has just released a poll showing Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) with large leads over either of his potential opponents, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-Ill), and gaining important ground in the vital swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, and Pennsylvania.  But with the Dems yet to unite behind one standard bearer (and they probably will unite), a potential financial crisis looming, and Iraq still a touchy subject, I will take a moment to warn Republicans not to start dancing just yet.

With big wins in the Ohio and Rhode Island primaries last night, along with a narrow victory in Texas' quirky primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has managed to keep her bid to be the Democrat's presidential nominee alive and also raised serious doubts about the ability of inexperienced rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) to put away an opponent.  He's kind of like a football team that can drive the ball down the field, but has to settle for a field goal rather than a touchdown.

He still has a formidable lead in delegates, but the momentum seems to be shifting back in the direction of the former First Lady.  The battle now moves to Pennsylvania, which is the last delegate-rich state that is yet to vote.

This is why Republicans should focus on winning over the base rather than the media.  Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is the closest thing to a media darling that Republicans have had in my lifetime, mostly due to his unrelenting willingness to throw fellow Republicans publicly under the bus.  However, now that he's the only man between a Democrat and the White House, the courtship is over.  John McCain is getting dumped.

Only one month removed from endorsing him for the Republican presidential nomination, saying, "he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," the New York Times is running a hit piece about McCain on their front pages, subtly accusing him of corruption and affairs (though they do not offer definitive proof of either).  The newest of their information is nearly a decade old and they even rehashed some stories that have been public for fifteen years or more.

Despite a career of pandering to these types, they've wasted no time in throwing McCain under the Straight Talk Express.  Maybe if he'd spent some time working with Conservatives rather than attacking us, we'd care a little about the smear.  Instead, it just seems like he's getting a taste of his own medicine.