I was going to let this go until I just noticed you're from Canada.

So.. back on topic.
You're being logical. US politics has never been logical or civilized. As a matter of interest it's currently pretty mild compared to the US' early decades.

Imagine yourself at a location in the DMZ, everything is cool and you are on your way home. You hear John McCain was captured after crashing his second airplane and you feel for the guy. Hanoi is hell!...Imagine somehow the communist butchers got your position, you and 1,000 of your bros, nurses, brothers, sick and wounded...Imagine that they killed every one of you, slaughter, from napalm to just coming in and butchering every last person...Imagine it was John McCain who gave away your position, and a few other thousand American soldiers and South Vietnamese warriors.

John McCain is a traitor by definition of the UCMJ...There is nothing heroic about selling out your bros for your ass...Heros DO NOT do that...McCain stabbed his brothers in the back.

But, if your name is John McCain and your father and grandfather were famous admirals, violating the Code of Conduct by "aiding the enemy" translates into fodder for a political career, book deals, and adulation bordering on sainthood.

Even though news reports of McCain collaborating with the enemy continued from the time he was captured in 1967 through 1970, the Navy never considered prosecution as an option.

Instead, Pentagon pencil pushers chose a political spin that lifted McCain, the former POW turned U.S. Senator, up to a glorified pedestal where he sprouted a halo and wings and became America's "POW-hero" and today a presidential candidate.

No such luck for the two lowly "grunts."

http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.jpg
http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm

McCain must enjoy stabbing his bros in the back...In 2004 he stabbed them (Swift Boat Vets) in the back defending the traitor Kerry.

After the Democrats crucify him, sacrificing him to the god of political power, that is about all he will have for support, the fence sitters.

Thing is, there are many, many fence sitters these days; many more so, I would say, than Dems or Reps would like to say are "their people."

I know quite a few diehard Democrats who'd vote for McCain, and honestly, McCain is still a Republican.

Hence, better to have a hoarse voice to project party beliefs - Republican in this case - than no voice at all, don't you think?

Without the Republican base, McCain has squat...FYI...The base DO NOT like McCain AT ALL!...Put your money on it.

What Republican base? If any base exists, it's eroding day-by-day. In 2008, I bet you won't even recognize the Republican base.

Either side can't win without solid base support. McCain can't do that. Nowadays the Rep base is more organized than most realize. Not that I find that unusual. It was after all the organized Christian base that spread John Adams' writings challenging England. They do have a history.

that said the Dem base has no policy and no insight into the future. Hillary is gonna have her hands full. Big Bill was in NYC recently pumping a mayoral candidate. Probably paying back someone a favor.. meaning he's turned into a glorified water boy. So far Hillary has been doing great but she hasn't had to mess with the base yet.. party hearty.

lol...Right dd...You are paying way too much attention to Chris Matthews...If you REALLY want to know what Republicans think, listen to Rush Limbaugh...you may learn something, even open your mind a bit more.

"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size of a football ... when I saw it, I said to the guard, 'O.K., get the officer' ... an officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as 'The Bug.' He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, 'O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'" -- US News and World Report, May 14, 1973

Must have been some darned good info...He got kid-glove treatment...which suggests his "military information" must have panned out, i.e. good intel.

POS...Then, of course, there is the POW/MIA back-stabbing by McCain:

While a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1993) he referred to POW/MIA Family Members and POW/MIA Activists as "whiners, vultures and the lunatic fringe."

McCainiac the traitor

Rush? No way. I thought you and I agreed to put our personal moratoriums on bad news media.

I used to be the guy in the basement at the Rep. Nat. Comm. who photocopied the checks like the one for $190k that DeLay is accused of telling the RNC to earmark for him. Yes really. The check was written by DeLay's PAC to RNSEC (Rep. Nat. State Elec. Comm.) and $190k is pretty small for those checks. The Wash. Post ran a photo of the check and it brought back a lot memories when I saw it. The reason we photocopied them was to back up our FEC reports. Remember, every penny of this stuff is publicy disclosed, so I don't see much opportunity for intentional malfeasance here. I was also the guy who often drove to the post office to deposit $250k-$500k at a time to cover the RNC's direct mail postage. So I have a little experience with how this stuff got divied up.

Unless some email or vm surfaces in which DeLay personally and explicitly told the RNC to redirect his PAC's funds to such and such candidates in TX, I don't see how any crime was committed. Furthermore, if a crime was committed, DeLay would not have been in a position to do it, since he isn't the guy who signs the RNC's checks. The RNC would be the guilty party here, IF they mixed the funds. But even if the RNC sent $190k in state money to some TX candidates DeLay supported, there's nothing illegal about it, as they keep state and federal money in separate accounts AND they are allowed to donate money to all levels of political races.

On another note, I am close to some folks in DeLay's office and have met DeLay many many times. I personally think he's a good guy, certainly a nice guy and nothing like the news describes him. They call him the Hammer, but he's pretty friendly, though unapologetic in his views. Dems hate him because he ALWAYS wins and ALWAYS outfoxes them. If you heard some of the staffers' horror stories about the infighting between Pelosi and Hoyer and how inefficiently their side runs their leadership posts, and you're a Dem, you'd hate DeLay even more because he's so much more effective than the opposition.

As for campaign finance reform, I think it's outrageous that any limits exist at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that money equals speech. Now that McCain/Feingold is law, the government restricts who and how people can criticize politicians in their ads. Does anyone think that's right? Does anyone think someone running for Senate in CA should have to abide by the same spending limits as someone running RI? The gov't. should get out of it altogether.

House seats, House Members.

Gerrymandering?? How? I don't think so. The legislature is supposed to redistrict House, Senate and Congressional lines every 10 years, they did not in 2001. The then House speaker wasn't going to allow it. Since the legislature didn't draw any new maps, it was the duty of the Leglislative Redistricting Board. The LRB is composed of the lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, attorney general, comptroller, and land commissioner, it was created by constitutional amendment in 1951. The board had a 4-1 Republican majority, the new Texas Senate and House plans that were adopted received a 3-2 vote. The LRB didn't have constitutional authority to draw new congressional lines.

The Republicans then took control of the House and Senate after the 2002 electons under the LRB plans. They then exercized their constitutional duty to draw new lines for Congress during the 2003 legislative session. Well the democrats didn't like that much, so, like panzies, they ran to New Mexico (Senators), and Oklahoma (House Members) on two separte occasions to avoid a vote in their respective chambers. Finally, a deal was compromised, and a new map was enacted.

On another note, Congressional redisticting in 1991 didn't change much from the previous map. Essentually, Texas was electing members to Congress from districts that had not been redrawn since 1981.

For all those years, especially 2001, there had been protection of several democrat US House seats. How can it be that Martin Frost always gets reelected when everyone around him votes republican? Frosty has a big democrat base with a little finger that shot up and grabed him, and his neighbors. It wasn't just his district either. Complete gerrymandering!! With the new lines, the percentage numbers actually grew closer. The "plan" was actually drawn as a 19-13 R majority map. The R's actually only picked up 4 seats, Ralph Hall had already switched parties.

To the victor goes the spoils, and if you look at data, the numbers don't lie, Texans were voting republican. All the statewide races have been swept by the republicans since 1998. Poke around and have a look for yourself. http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/redist.htm

Back in 2001, when the LRB was meeting, you never heard nor saw of Tom DeLay. It wasn't until 2003 that he started licking his chops, and became a popular specticle around the pink granite building here in Austin. Earle is a pissed off man b/c of the results after redistricting, and this is simply a publicity stunt. He tried, but couldn't pin it on any other republicans, so he went after DeLay. Earle's son is running for a state House of Reps. seat by the way.:rolleyes:

so where is Mul these days?:D