UPDATE: months after confusing Iran and Iraq, (multiple – times), M.c.Cain continues to try to upstage Bush’s famous canon of mis-spoken quotes by stating that Putin is President of Germany.
Say what you want about Barack Obama’s ‘change’ message, just know if you go with J.o.hn M.c.Cain you’re saying yes to four more years of Bush style politics. While he’s still hawking that ‘maverick’ tag, don’t believe the hype, instead, let’s look at some statements by the senator. Recently M.c.Cain perked my interest when he came out in favor of FISA, warrantless wiretapping/eavesdropping and executive power. Funny thing is, he had the exact opposite opinion on these topics when he was asked in December 2007!
On Wednesday, I documented J.o.hn M.c.Cain’s complete reversal of views — in the last six months alone — on FISA, warrantless eavesdropping and executive power. M.c.Cain’s diametrically opposite views were contained in a questionnaire M.c.Cain completed for The Boston Globe last December (wherein he rejected many of the Bush/Cheney theories of presidential omnipotence and warrantless eavesdropping) and then a statement M.c.Cain issued this week to National Review (wherein he embraced those same theories in order to persuade the Right that he approves of and would continue Bush’s lawless surveillance policies).
Another source states more of what transcribed at the National Review:
A top adviser to Senator J.o.hn M.c.Cain says Mr. M.c.Cain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. M.c.Cain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance…
I’m all for having opinions, but if a simple disagreement turns to violence, someone must be watching too much tv. The apparent argument was over a 
We’ve got to find a way to take the conservative symbolic message of faith talk out of American politics. First let me state what I believe in as far as religion; I believe religion is a very personal thing, and I feel it should be that way for everyone. This goes a long way in understanding my disdain for so called ‘faith-based politics’, examples of which have been in abundance this campaign season. Now, before you jump on me, I am talking about ‘both’ (anyone find a viable 3rd party candidate that can raise 100 bazillion dollars to go the dance? I wish we could…but that’s another post 
) parties, Democrats and Republicans. When you hear any of them kowtowing to the evangelicals (who have been the sweet target these past few months), you know they’re deliberately targeting those people, and those people only. The fact that so many have been called out to ‘prove’ their conviction is the true one, and in line with the vote heavy evangelicals, is a sad commentary on how people vote.
Hillary is being crowned the ‘come from behind kid’ after ‘winning’ the New Hampshire primary; but this appears to be nothing but spin. First of all the results, Hillary took 39% of the popular vote to Barack ‘s 37%, so Hillary wins, right? Not exactly, if you look at the delegate count you’ll see a different picture. Remember, people can win the popular vote and loose the election (Gore). From the article/discussion on 
You owe it yourself, or me, to visit 
Home