Jack & Jill Politics

Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ, We Didn't Get the Memo!

http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/200...

A story that didn't get enough traction. Where is black leadership and the black blogosphere when Obama is labeled the anti-Christ? Asleep at the wheel?

More McCain lies.....

McCain Lied or Was Confused: You Make the Call
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/mccain-l...

McCain Voted For Earmark He Rails Against In Ad
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/mccain...

His wife lies too... about stealing drugs, cookie recipes, receipts and being an only child...a wide cross-section

Cindy McCain's Half Sister 'Angry' She's Hidden
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

McCain says rich people are not necessarily happy, apparently they're not necessarily honest either.

TruthSeeker: I'm going with BOF-O-DEM!! LIED and C-O-N-F-U-S-E-D!!!!

Whew!! Angrily shakin' Deep Breaths!!! :>) :>) :>)

Cindy McCain's Half Sister 'Angry' She's Hidden
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

How ugly. It's a shame that people can treat their own family members like this. I can understand Cindy not feeling "sisterly" toward her half-sister, but not even to acknowledge she exists? Wrong. Familial relationships are complicated, certainly, but this can only add to bad blood.

And what a winner Cindy's dad was-- leaving his first wife for the new model (hmmm, sounds familiar), not raising his first child, barely supporting her, then leaing nearly his entire fortune to Cindy. No wonder Cindy doesn't have a moral compass (or at least one that doesn't reliably point North).

I just read this story and was about to post it. This is a shame.

Isn't it?...

What reason could Cindy have for excluding her sister?

I wouldn't be surprised if Cindy had tried to pass herself off as John's only wife, either.

POW: I remember McCain telling the cross story in 1971
posted at 5:25 pm on August 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Hopefully the left will challenge this. Anything that keeps McCain’s heroism front and center, without a shred of evidence from any eyewitness that he’s lying, is tantamount to an in-kind campaign contribution. More, please.

I called Orson Swindle, a fellow POW who is campaigning for McCain, to ask him about it.

“I recall John telling that story when we first got together in 1971, when were talking about every conceivable thing that had ever happened to us when we were in prison” Swindle told me a few minutes ago. “Most of us had been kept apart or in small groups. Then, in 1970, they moved us into the big cell. And when we all got to see each other and talk to each other directly, instead of tapping through walls, we had 24 hours a day, seven days a week to talk to each other, and we shared stories. I vaguely recall that story being told, among other stories.”

“I remember it from prison,” Swindle continued. “There were several stories similar to that in which guards — a very few, I might add — showed compassion to the prisoners. It was rare, and I never met one, but some of the guys did.”

I’ll make you follow the link for Swindle’s assessment of the naysayers. He’s right too about the guards and their associates occasionally showing compassion; Bob Owens googled around to see if he could corroborate McCain’s story and stumbled upon a similar incident involving former POW (and GOP senator) Jeremiah Denton. The dumbest part of all of this — aside from the fact that the nutroots is pushing it into the mainstream media, where it’ll redound to McCain’s advantage and dirty St. Barack’s hands by association — is that if he was going to make up stories to prove his devotion while in prison, surely he could do better than this. I remember some lefty (at TNR, I think) noting quite rightly after McCain’s Christmas ad came out that the specifics of it really are more a testament to his captor’s faith and humanity than to McCain’s. If Maverick wanted to dazzle believers with evidence of his own grace under pressure, he’s got material to work with. But then, this is a guy whose son was stationed in Iraq and yet who almost never mentions that fact on the trail even though it gives him moral cover in his push for a sustained troop presence. Anyway, rock on, netroots.

Even the Repubs don't trust him....

Sorry Fellow Kossaks, But It Was Freepers Who First Spotted McCain's Plagiarism
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/18/769...

McCain has no plans to address Corsi's book. So I say this means Obama should stop apologizing and responding every time someone from his side lies or acts a fool. If the media let's McCain get away with this, then Obama should stop reacting to everything they run to him with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/mccain...

More importantly, Obama needs to stop apologizing and responding every time someone says a controversial TRUTH like Wes Clark or Samantha Power.

Bingo!

Gingrich Claims Tire Inflation Lines Big Oil’s Pockets»
Last night on Fox News, host Sean Hannity and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) returned (as they often do) to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) recent suggestion that Americans inflate their tires properly in order to save energy costs.

Seeming to outdo his previous false attacks on this issue, Gingrich claimed that Obama’s idea is actually encouraging Americans to “enrich Big Oil” because selling air has “a higher profit margin than selling gasoline”:

GINGRICH: Well, I got a very funny e-mail from a retired military officer in Tampa who pointed out that most tire inflation is done at service stations and you pay for it. And it’s actually a higher profit margin than selling gasoline. So Sen. Obama was urging you to go out and enrich Big Oil by inflating your tires instead of buying gas.

This claim is absurd for a number of reasons. First, gas station owners, not Big Oil, receive the profits from selling air — if they sell air at all (presumably from mechanized air machines). Second, air is free. So of course the profit margin for selling air is going be higher than a gallon of gas. By contrast, the cost of oil accounts for a significant portion of the price of gasoline. So any profits from gasoline sales (which are actually quite small) also go to the gas station owners, after Big Oil has already been paid.

But beyond Gingrich’s ridiculous assertion, the Auto Alliance has noted that maintaining proper tire pressure is “more important than you may think” because it saves fuel and reduces costs and greenhouse gases.

Indeed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) — whom Gingrich once praised as one of the “great winners” — agrees. Today he endorsed the thrust of Obama’s idea, saying “you can reduce your fuel costs by more than 15%. And I am talking about simple things, like proper tire pressure, avoiding rapid starts and stops, and keeping your engine tuned.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/18/gingrich-ti...

Lawrence Fishburne joins CSI, taking over the William Petersen spot.

Wow,
That's interesting. Angela Bassett on ER
and now this. I guess work is work.

Not being able to handle a question under pressure.....

Stumped about Viagra or Birth Control

In Florida when asked about Equal Rights...

This kind of stuff tipped us off....that something was up.

Give...me...a...break

You are absolutely right about this. I was shocked during
the forum. I have never seen him be so articulate
and intelligible!

Jindal stumped when asked to name new ‘big ideas’ that McCain is proposing.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asserted that the Republican Party “used to be the party of big ideas.” Gregory then asked his guest Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), “What’s the big idea Senator McCain is campaigning on?” Jindal responded, “I think there’s several,” but couldn’t provide an answer. Gregory asked again, “Where are the new big ideas of the Republican Party that John McCain is, is championing?” And again Jindal couldn’t provide an answer.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/jindal-stum...

(maybe its just me but Bobby Jindal's voice is creepy)

BOBBY JINDAL is creepy, from the beady little eyes right down to the tales of exorcism.

Michael Gerson of the Washington Post writes:

"For many evangelicals, the theoretical Obama -- the Obama of hope and unity -- is intriguing, even appealing. But this opinion is not likely to improve upon closer inspection of his policy views. Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him. "I want people to know me well," said Obama at the forum. Among religious conservatives, that may not be an advantage."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/...

And this from fivethirtyeight.com

"Although Barack Obama remains a slight favorite in this election, his position is more vulnerable than at any point since the primaries concluded, and he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before.

The reason is a new poll out of Ohio, where Public Policy Polling now shows the race dead-even at 45-45. In a PPP poll conducted in July, Obama had led by 8; that poll had been largely responsible for propping up Obama's Ohio numbers. Our simulation model operates quite literally in shades of color, rather than a simple red:blue duality. However, with this poll figured in, we now figure McCain to be a very slight favorite in Ohio.

Furthermore, with Ohio now trailing behind Obama's numbers nationally -- we regard Obama as a 1.0-point favorite in the national popular vote, but McCain an 0.6-point favorite in Ohio -- McCain now rates as slightly more likely to win the electoral college than the popular vote, a reversal of the trend apparent for most of the past couple of months."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/tod...

But I guess it is easier, and obviously distracting, to accuse McCain of cheating at the forum and lying about his biography. However, it does not hide the fact that Obama is a candidate who does not perform well unscripted and under scrutiny.

You right a former bush speech writer a fellow at the heritage foundation would be a impartial observer.You couldn't get a quote from Rush Limpballs. Bill Orally or the rest of the windbags on the right.You people take pride in you ignorance

Who knew that Jerome Corsi who writes lies about Democrats would write this about the OLDMAN who is the reTHUGlican Presidential nominee
Jerome Corsi wrote that group tied to al-Qaeda supports McCain
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/18/jerome...

Another good one:

The Evangelical Jesus Cure for Unforgivable Blackness
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/18/111...

"Cone of silence" controvery grows - McCain refusing to directly answer the question. More from ABC
http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/fake-cone-of...

"McCain refusing to directly answer the question."

-Hey now!

No one gave him the answer beforehand!

I don't know how to post links, but I thought this might be interesting.

McCain Just Lost Colorado!! Take a moment to DIGG and Email!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/195325/...

He's trying to steal their water and give it to AZ. Not a good look.

Excellent! Water is so important to those desert states. No more golf courses. Scotland suited the game not Arizona.

When your ideals are bankrupt, when you have nothing to offer the country this is what you do.
Obama Infanticide Attack Being Readied By 527s, Pat Buchanan Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/obama-...

Hey! JJP has 1,111 readers, according to your Feedburner widget! It's not as auspicious as 888, but -- congrat's JJP!

McCain’s Bushlike Moral Infantilism
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/18/mccains-bushl...

A Bill and Hillary Psycho-Drama

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, was tasked by the Obama campaign this summer with soothing ruffled feelings and helping Hillary loyalists to get over their sense of loss. It has been a demanding assignment.

"There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred," Panetta said. "They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the mantle and it's tough to crack that."

Rothschild is the founder of Together4Us, a group formed to "honour" Clinton and the nearly 18m voters who supported her in the primaries. Among its demands were a state-by-state roll-call of votes - a final show of muscle by the vanquished Clinton - and a prime speaking slot for her.

They got what they wanted after Obama caved in last week. Seasoned advisers fear the convention is shaping up to be a divisive Bill and Hillary psycho-drama. "It's not something that I would have recommended, but they're trying to bend over backwards as far as they can to accommodate her," said Panetta. "I'm a little disturbed that this keeps playing out."

<a href: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_...> Lady De Rothschild Whines Again

I've been thinking more about this roll-call thing.

I continue to feel that Senator Obama would not have agreed to it if it wasn't ok to do in the bigger picture and the goal of winning the presidency.

Focusing on the PUMA types is diversion, IMO. This is was and has been a Clinton drama start to finish.

Here's my theory right now:

The article says: a final show of muscle by the vanquished Clinton

This is what I think Ms. Hillary is going for: the opportunity to appear to "give" the nomination to Senator Obama. The opportunity to supposedly demonstrate that it is only through the generosity of the White Lady Monarch she has been acting like all along that she will allow him run for president. She was the Wounded White Woman, now she will be the Benevolent "Generous" White Woman.

I suspect that Senator Obama and his staff/advisors likely decided that her display of fake power is irrelevant to the larger picture. Her narrative (the nomination is hers by right and she is generously giving it to the undeserving Black man) is false.

And the falseness of that narrative is visible for anyone who actually looks at what happened in the primaries and how it happened. The actual situation is that he and his people have worked very hard and been very focused and organized in their work ... and it has paid off in giving him the nomination. It was hers to win, she had nearly every advantage to start with. And she lost it to him. It is just not hers to give now.

Lesser people/campaigns might get caught up in a certain brand of pride related to dominance/subordination -- might refuse to allow Ms. Hillary her false narrative of "giving" him what he in truth has earned with hard work. Might refuse this because it is a dominance display and because it is an ugly lie.

But under the bluster, all it is is a display, and a false one at that. And if my perception of this situation is accurate, it won't really matter in the end. I think it takes a very mature and clear-eyed person and campaign to refuse to get baited by this kind of thing and keep focus on the larger goal. If I hadn't seen what I have seen during the campaign so far I would think that this level of maturity wasn't allowed in presidential politics. But I think it is where Senator Obama and his people are coming from.

Of course, all this is speculation and we won't know what it is going to be and do til it happens and afterward.

At this point, I'm not sure that even Bill or Hillary can stop the PUMAs. It's taken on a life of it's own. These are people who are heavily emotionally invested in the "idea" of Hillary running for President and this black guy comes and takes it away from her. They're operating on emotion, not logic.

In Monday August 18th edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer Charles Krauthammer has admitted, what everyone has known but for too many afraid to admit, that Bush deliberately and willfully did not respond to Katrina properly. In talking about what President Bush should do about the Russian response in Georgia, "President Bush needs to make up for his mini-Katrina moment when he lingered in Beijing yukking it up with our beach volleyball team while Putin flew to North Ossetia to direct the invasion of a neighboring country."

Now not only has the neo-con politics of President Bush's presidenct been exposed but they don't care about the American public at all.

Because, of course, Bush should've been out filling sandbags like Obama.

Or maybe he should've gone down and just said, "peace, be still."

It was 5 days before the Administration even put out a statement...just a statement! Something.

When that Tsuamni hit, the man was having a press conference next day talking about the US is here to help.

Wrong.

It's okay, though: I am convinced that, among liberals, Bush would've had to either hold the leeves himself or fly a USCG helo during the rescue/recovery to get any credit for that incident.

D


The White House Press release you cite is dated Aug 28 05. Katrina hit La on the 29th. It says, "Yesterday, I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Louisiana, and this morning I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Mississippi. These declarations will allow federal agencies to coordinate all disaster relief efforts with state and local officials. We will do everything in our power to help the people in the communities affected by this storm."The hurricane reached LA the next day.

Do I understand you to actually believe the FEMA coordinated the response properly? You believe that when the President actually saw the magnitude of the disaster he could not speak from the bully pulpit of the Presidency to do more?

Thank you for providing the information to prove your case is false.

If it makes you feel better, the disaster declarations were issued the day of. No mention of the fact that saying it took five days to make a statement is false....but what does the truth matter?

The response to Katrina prior to DHS invoking the government's National Response Plan was a failure. In terms of calendar days, that gives you about 1-2 days of chaos before a mechanism to fix things was set in motion. FEMA did the best they could, given the circumstances. It's left to the responders and policy makers to determine whether more could have been done (which most say could have) as I was not there. I don't know if you were or not.

Tell me, what would you have liked the President to have done? Pause the war in Iraq/Afghanistan for a month to clean up New Orleans? Drive buses full of evacuees out prior to the storm? Perform rescues with the Coast Guard and Navy?

It's standard issue to issue disaster declarations before major storms strike. It just allows federal resources to be used to help states.

FEMA's response was a mess. I'm sure the people who worked there did the best that they could, but the Bush administration made it a point to gut FEMA of resources and expertise. Bush appointed a succession of people unfit to head FEMA from the first days of his administration when he appointed his campaign chief. Then after Sept 11, their entire focus became Homeland Security, which should not have been its domain. FEMA needs to be ready to respond to ALL disasters-- natural and manmade, but the Bush administration treated the agency like it was an unnecessary joke. On the other hand, Clinton made FEMA a CABINET level position. Emergency management is a field of expertise that is not suited for any yahoo who just happens to be in Bush's good graces.

You brought up Iraq-- if our National Guard had NOT been embroiled in an elective war, there would have been the people and equipment resources necessary to respond to the disaster.

On the Bush Admin's treatment of FEMA.....I don't disagree. In that, the administration failed. FEMA did the best they could with what they had, so I'm hesitant to blame them.

On the NG....it's a fair point. You would have to compare the numbers of how many were deployed at that time to those who were available stateside in order to be truly objective. I will say that I was not a fan of putting GEN Honore's unit in there when they had recently returned from Iraq. That was NOT smart (though, to his credit, he did get them in line).

I just wanted him to give a damn...but that's just me.

Please D tell me what conservatism means to you since you hate progressives

Asked and answered.

Maybe you'd know if you had actually read what I wrote, instead of looking for places to attempt to justify your narrow viewpoints.

Maybe and this is just my 2 cents he should have done more than let a American city be without services while he was strumming a guitar and eating cake with McOldman.

The McCain Doctrine
Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/1...

bison1: THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!

Sorry I can't stay here for the rest of this discussion. :>) :>)

http://thepoliticalcarnival...

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Did John McCain "Borrow" His "Cross In The Sand" Story?

I report, you decide. Transcript from the forum last night here.

It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it. Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such. No dice. But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found. A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.

Excerpted from "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, three volumes published 1973-1978.

Bison, I have a post up on McCain's cheating in this debate, with Rick Warren's help.

Picked this up along the way:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008

As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_...

When the pastor asked McCain to define “rich,” his answer answer mirrored his thinking on economic policy. After dancing around the question, McCain tossed off $5 million as his number for rich. When McCain said, "some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy," was he speaking of himself? More importantly, when McCain defined rich in terms of people’s psychological welling being that reminded me of Phil Gram’s saying that the recession was all in people’s heads and not in their pocketbooks!

When asked which sitting Supreme Court justice he would not have nominated, Obama named first Thomas and then Scalia, saying he disagreed with both ideologically and that Thomas had not been a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time” of his nomination. He did speak to Thomas’s experience. Obama attacked him on his lack of strong intellectual intuitiveness as a jurist. His criticism of Scalia and Roberts was starkly different. It was not on their intellectual capacity. His vote against Roberts sprang from a concern about maintaining a balance of power between the three branches of government. His response was authentic. He sought to answer the question honestly and personally. Whereas McCain responded with patently campaign rhetoric. He simply said that his nominee would oppose on a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. This was not a thought wrenching answer.

The responses about the question of evil were the most revealing. Obama’s answer was very introspective. He said, “Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. . . .I strongly believe is that . . . we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.” He humble in the face of God an saw himself as a soldier in God’s against evil. He was an instrument of the Lord. Whereas McCain’s answer was not introspective. There was no humility from him. For most Christians, the first response to that question would not be "Al Qaeda" and following Bin Laden to the gates of hell. Most do not believe they can defeat evil, they understand that is God’s task but they are soldiers in his army.

My white, evangelical in-laws are on board with you there! Evil is for God to resolve, not humanity, which does not of course absolve our responsibility to stand up to it.

Of course, my in-laws are already Obama supporters in Illinois and also Lutheran, so I don't know if their reaction is typical for other white, evangelical Americans. But my brother-in-law felt that the audience started out sympathetic to McCain but that Obama probably won more supporters than McCain did given their respective starting-points.

When Obama was asked when does life begin he said, "Whether you're looking at it from a theoretical or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." I read Obama answer as not seeing himself as being omnipotent– his answer was humble. He was leaving that to a greater power ! His response was authentic. He sought to answer the question honestly and personally. Whereas McCain responded with patently campaign rhetoric. He simply said that life begins at conception. McCain’s answer was trapped in campaign jargoned.

I translated that comment the same bison1. above my pay grade means - God's role.

I was surprise to learn that the most the most gut-wrenching decision McCain ever had to make was not leaving his sick wife. She had be faithful and waited for his return from war. McCain said his greatest personal moral failing was the “failure of my first marriage.” He did not explain why the marriage failed. There should have been further discussions on this. Warren, who was critical of former Sen. John Edward’s ability to lead after he admitted he had an affair, did not take this question to McCain.

The intent of Warren was to ask blunt questions and, at one point, playfully warned Obama: “Don’t give me your stump speech on these." Warren did not challenge McCain when he recited his stumped speech. Mc Cain did not openly discuss his faith. Repeatedly, Mc Cain gave his stump speech. There was not anything introspective about his answers. Even his war stories were canned. While Obama quoted a Biblical proverb and spoke at length about his faith as a "source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." Obama gave a Christian interpretation to his generally political views. Obama described many of his positions, even on taxes and energy, in the language of a devout Christian. None of this was forthcoming from McCain. When McCain was asked what his faith meant to him, McCain said it “means I’m saved and forgiven.” Then, he moved away from that as soon as possible. He referenced the works of his Southern Baptist church in Phoenix, and his reliance on prayer during his captivity in Vietnam. He never flushed out the answer. Warren gave him a pass.

McCain Campaign has lost credibility because they have be caught in a series of lies. The campaign is angry with Andrea Mitchell because she was the first MSM correspondent to call them out on the lie about Obama not wanting to visit the troops because he it would not give him the opportunity for a photo-opt. It has be obvious to all that the Campaign has put out attack ads that are factually untrue. The McCain Campaign has waddled in gutter politics. The campaign has throw away any veneer of honesty and trust. For this reason, it is not a far leap to conclude that since the McCain Campaign has been caught lying and drastically distorting the truth, that it will also cheat. So, it was not Mitchell’s fault that McCain was not in the cone of silence as Warren had told the nation, she merely called attention to concerned that was expressed by the Obama Campaign. Indeed, Davis has admitted himself that Mc Cain was not in the cone of silence he was in a motorcade. He confirmed Mitchell’s report. McCain was not were he was suppose to have been, and because of the low brow behavior of the campaign this raises suspicious. Don’t shoot the message, clean up the campaign!