Where did my McCain go?

There was once a vibrant and passionate politician who stood for something. He meticulously avoided shady dealings and always tried to do what he thought was right. People loved him for it, he was called a maverick and a straight-talker.

He stepped across party boundaries in an attempt to make the political process more balanced.

Nowadays you don’t hear much about that guy. Wait, did you think I was talking about Barack Obama? Obviously not since you can’t turn on a TV or radio without hearing his name.

I’m trying to figure out what the heck happened to John McCain.

Where once the American people loved his firey nature, they now seem to be chiding his temper. And while he once stood for fair election practices, he’s now caught up in a campaign financing debacle that seemed to threaten his whole campaign at one time.

It may be that this term is played out by now, but it really seems like McCain has sold out.

In 2000 it seemed like he offered a stark contrast to the Reagenesque spend and hope ideals of G. Bush Jr.

Now it seems as if his mesage is that he plans to continue the failed policies of that administration.

He talks about a gas tax holiday when what we really need to talk about is conservation–cutting back that is, not hugging trees.

This is a conservative who makes no bones about being pro-life while still supporting stem-cell research.

And maybe that’s the problem. While we love John McCain for his personal story as a war hero and independent man, we don’t necesarrily like his policies, or at least not all of them.

McCain is a politician for a group that really doesn’t exist. His political views are defined issue by issue rather than by a party line.

At the same time that we like that in a man, it’s political suicide. People like predictability and consistency, they like someone who, once they know where he stands on the Iraq War, they know where he’ll stand on immigration and gay marriage–two issues where McCain has repeatedly refused to toe the party line.

With John McCain it’s something of a crap shoot. He’ll make up his own mind and damned be the consequences.

At least, that used to be the image he put forward. Now it seems like that one thing we like about him–that he wanted to end corruption and fight insider politics–is gone as he court the same political figures that he spurned in 2000.

It seems that he’s lived to learn from his lesson in 2000. Being a “maverick” isn’t enough to win the presidency. He needs the support of those party insiders to bolster his war chest.

His drop from headlines is obviously hurting him. Though they haven’t gone after him with any vigor yet, Democratic candidates have made off hand comments and worked through proxy to tarnish the 70-year-old’s image without him being able to snipe back.

The real test seems to be coming up in the general election. Will McCain resort to what many journalists refer to as the “Karl Rove playbook,” or will he keep it above the board and make this about the issues that we all want to know about.

I really hope it’s the second choice, because I don’t know how much more jaded I can get without going all rigid and green.

A big shit sandwich, want a bite?

There are alot of angry people on the left side of the American political spectrum this week. In a democratic race that has been contested from Iowa all the way to Pennsylvania, the two leading candidates were all set to debate last week.

But where was the debate? Where was the information on the topics that we all want to hear about? The American public has a knot in it's collective stomach about the economy and the lending crisis, but instead the moderators asked questions about the goddamn Weather Underground, a mildly violent group from the 1960s.

We wanted to hear about how the Iraq quagmire might be resolved sooner rather than later, but the moderators felt that a few questions about a former first lady's trip to Tuzla was more important than a current war.

To tell the truth, the YouTube debates which were a mockery themselves probably had more political substance than that reeking pool of festered cat urine that saw two hours of air-time last week.

Ignoring the very idea that a moderator may have gotten one of his questions directly from right-wing mouthpiece Sean Hannity, it seems clear to me that they weren't at all interested in trying to advance the public knowledge of the candidates' stances on issues. Rather they decided to shoot for the Pulitzer prize for moderating by asking such zingers as "What's the deal with that flg pin (or lack thereof)?" and "Didn't your pastor once make an off-color comment?"

I'm generally surprised they didn't ask Mrs. Clinton about how her period affects campaign strategy, or who Obama's favorite rapper is.

This is it. This is what political discourse has come to. Not only are television ads worthless in determining any sort of information about a candidate (not a new development), but debates are lowest-common-denominator. The moderators may as well have farted into their mics and had the candidates rate the tone, timbre and smell.

I have yet to decide which is worse, the debate, or the hordes of right-wing flunkies who are falling over themselves to call out the candidates for failing to acceptably answer "hardball" questions.

Let me pose a hypothetical question: If you take a ball of wet manure, stick a rock in the middle of it and then wrap it in a filthy gym sock before throwing it, does that count as a hard or soft ball?

I really don't know if the moderators (Stephanopolous and Gibson) are stupid or just ridiculously out of touch with the American people. Maybe in some high Ivory tower, it matters a lot weather Obama has lunch with a man who had ties to a radical group fourty years ago. Did we forget that Ayers (the man in question) was pardoned? Or that his group never killed anyone, taking great pains to warn the occupants of the buildings they intended to blow up?

Clinton jumped all over Obama and said that the Weather Underground killed innocent people with their bombs. That's either a lie or a misrepresentation of facts depending on how you look at it. The only people who died were members of the group who accidentally touched off an explosion while manufacturing bombs. It would seem then that they were hardly innocent.

I don't care who you support. That debate was a big garbage sandwich that we shouldn't have to swallow it.

The Golden Rule

Having money is no excuse for being a jerk.

It doesn’t matter if you have nine dollars or nine million, you will be expected to maintain, at the very least, an air of civility toward your fellow man.

During a trip to my favorite pub I got to witness a person violating this particular ethos.

Let me set this up by saying that the place was packed. I was lucky enough to have a seat by the bar having gotten their early to watch the final four basketball games – I picked Kansas to win.

This person, Jackhole #1, comes up behind me and reaches his arm over my shoulder to hold up a five dollar bill like it’s a flag for the bartender.

He then turns back to talk to his pack of compatriots without even looking at the bar. The bartender serves about three other people drinks before coming to find what this guy wants.

After being asked for a drink order three times, the guy finally turns around and orders a beer and a mojito. I can only assume that the mojito was for a girl, and considering how busy the bar was it was a ridiculous request.

While it may seem silly that any drink would be off limits in a bar, a mojito requires a bar tender to crush spearmint and lime together and dissolve granulated sugar in the drink. At a busy bar, any pint pourer worth his salt could serve six other people in the time it takes to make this one drink.

But Jackhole #1 wasn’t finished. He proceeded to give a five minute lecture to the tender about how he shouldn’t make regular customers weight.

I’m in that bar fairly often and have never seen this guy or any of his posse ever before.

Now, knowing the bartender, I’m surprised he didn’t just tear the guy’s money in half and hand it back to him.

Instead he very politely informed Jackhole #1 that there was no mint for the mojito, but he could make one with just lime.

Jackhole accepts this by grunting and nodding.

About 60 seconds later the bartender is back with the drinks and quotes the price as $7. Jackhole lays down his fiver and picks up the drinks to walk away.

What followed is what I can only describe as an escalating scene in which Jackhole #1 refused to pay full price for the mojito because of the flaw which he had accepted before it was made. In the meantime Jackholes #2-6 had joined in to loudly throw some very rude names across the bar.

I’d like to remind all the readers out there that this entire exchange was taking place over my head. I don’t like to eavesdrop, but when people have to literally converse around you it’s hard not to hear.

Eventually the manager came down and gave the group two options. Pay up or leave.

As the crew of complainers filed out the door, leaving the two half-consumed drinks behind, a smattering of applause went up from the crowd.

I shot a quizzical look at the owner who shrugged and pointed to a sign on the wall. It read: “Everyone who comes in here makes us smile. Some when they enter, others when they leave.

I ordered another beer and toasted the tender who was kind enough to pour it for me.

As an amusing side note, Jackhole #1 never bothered to pick up his five dollars before leaving. When this was pointed out to the bar tenders it was dropped into the tip jar.

I guess five dollars is a fair price for half of two drinks and alot of grief.