One day after the price of oil hit a record of $119 a barrel, President Bush predictably pointed the finger of blame at Congress. During his often bizarre press conference Tuesday, Bush lambasted Capitol Hill for the skyrocketing oil prices which have more than tripled during his tenure. But while the President dredged up proposals from his first term, one Bush promise was notably absent from his blame game. Yesterday, George W. Bush's campaign 2000 boast that he would "jawbone" his friends in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia into opening the spigots was nowhere to be heard.

"What I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price...

...I used to be in the oil business. I was little oil -- really little oil. And so I understand the -- I understand what can happen in the marketplace."

By June 2000, the Bush jawbone pledge became a standard on the stump. As the New York Times reported, Bush foreshadowed future expenditures of political capital he would fail to accumulate:

"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. "Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot."

That November, of course, the American people were persuaded. Despite Bush's own personal record of busts and bailouts in the business, his family's close ties to Prince Bandar and the Saudi royal family, Americans must have reasoned, should count for something.

As it turned out, not so much.

Confusing master and slave in the American-OPEC relationship, Bush failed at every turn to get his Persian Gulf friends to bump up production or slash prices. Other times, of course, he didn't even try.

In the spring of 2004, the White House trumpeted Saudi Prince Bandar's commitment to maintaining the price of oil in the range of $22 to $28 a barrel. With the price then at $33 a barrel, by April speculation ran rampant that President Bush had secured a deal with the Saudis just in time for the November election. But as a barrel reached then-record levels topping $50, it became clear that both Bush and Bandar were backing off their past pledges. As CBS News reported that September:

As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or "jawbone," Mideast oil producers to increase output.

A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.

In the spring of 2005, President Bush returned to his failed formula on oil prices. Promising to use his self-proclaimed charm to woo the Saudis, Bush would ultimately leave the American people to the mercy of the marketplace. As the AP detailed:

In a CNBC interview, Bush said he would press the Saudi crown prince to boost production. "I'll be talking to our friends about making sure they understand that if they pinch the world economy too much, it'll affect their ability to sell crude oil in the long run," Bush said.

Jerry Taylor, an energy analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank that advocates less government regulation, said the idea that "jawboning OPEC or arranging for nice relations with OPEC will somehow get us more oil is utter illusion."

An illusion, indeed. As the price of a barrel oil surged into record territory in early March, OPEC dismissed out of hand President Bush's latest use of his jawbone. Pointing to the collapse of the dollar during the Bush presidency and the slumping American economy, OPEC leaders are not budging on production levels or prices:

"OPEC is angry that President Bush wants them to increase production while the dollar is sinking and the administration is doing nothing about that," said Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company in New York. "It"s really not surprising that they have ignored him."

The dramatic decline of the dollar, now at a new low of $1.56 to the euro, raises the prospect of a perfect storm from OPEC. The oil cartel could follow through on recent threats to price the currently dollar-denominated petroleum in euros. While Saudi King Abdullah in November 2007 shut down grandstanding talk from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about moving away from the "worthless piece of paper," by February 2008 OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri suggested the oil cartel over time might make the switch to euro-based pricing. For its part, Tehran followed through on its threat, confirming today that Iran will no longer accept dollars for oil trades.

Back in Washington, yesterday President Bush was left to grouse about Congress for a situation he insists is not his fault. In his prepared remarks peppered with accusations of Congressional inaction, Bush opened with a salvo aimed at Capitol Hill. "I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems," Bush said, "Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them." Ultimately, a frustrated George W. Bush suggested the energy crisis called for a higher power:

"And so I firmly believe that -- you know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course."

Which just goes to show the American people what happens when they place their trust in the jawbone of an ass.

In the wake of Wright's erratic grandstanding at events on Sunday and Monday, Senator Obama made it clear he had enough of the minister's continuing affronts:

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good...But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS...There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

But 62 days after he declared himself "very proud" and "honored" to the have the endorsement of the End Times Pastor John Hagee, Republican John McCain still has not answered - or even been asked - the question that should concern all Americans:

Does John McCain agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Armageddon?

When John McCain on April 2, 2006 said of possible simultaneous conflicts with Iraq and Iran that "I think we could have Armageddon," was he literally speaking of the final conflagration involving the mass conversion and killing of the Jews described in the Bible? Does John McCain believe, as Pastor Hagee clearly does, that American foreign and national security policy should be governed by the Book of Revelation?

Despite his assurances to the contrary, John Hagee's 2006 address to his organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), left no doubt where he stands on Israel and war with Iran as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy:

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West...a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ"

On February 27, 2008, John McCain stood on a San Antonio stage with Pastor Hagee. When will John McCain say where he stands on Hagee's most dangerous - and apocalyptic - beliefs about Iran?

UPDATE 1: For his part, in March Pastor Hagee assured CNN's Glenn Beck that Barack Obama is not the Anti-Christ. Of course not. According to John Hagee, the Anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union.

UPDATE 2: In an editorial Wednesday, the New York Times notes that "Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright." Still nothing about the end-of-times conflict with Iran.

Two recent polls suggest that Democrats are winning minds but losing hearts in the war for the White House in 2008. Despite surveys showing that Americans consistently prefer Democratic positions over those of Republicans across virtually every issue, a new Rasmussen poll found voters trust John McCain more than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And last week, an AP/Yahoo poll revealed no difference in voters' candidate preferences even when it came to the election's most important issue, the economy. So as the 2008 election is being increasingly transformed into a battle of personalities, Democrats are losing the character war.

No doubt, the Rasmussen survey reflects both the toll of the bitter (and endless) Democratic race and the seeming imperviousness of the media's Maverick McCain myth. For example, on the economy, Americans prefer Democrats over Republicans by 48% to 40%. Yet in head-to-head matchups, voters say they trust John McCain over both Hillary Clinton (47% to 42%) and Barack Obama (46% to 39%). Despite John McCain's repeated admissions that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," right now Americans trust him more than his Democratic rivals on the issue they consider most important in 2008.

Those findings are consistent with the outcome of the recent AP/Yahoo survey. That poll found the economy far and away the most important issue; at 67%, it led gas prices (59%), health care (57%) and Iraq (48%) among Americans asked to rate each as "extremely important." Here, too, voters "divide about evenly between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, and between McCain and the other Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

On Iraq, too, McCain scored better in the Rasmussen research, despite the nation's overwhelming opposition to the war and his position on it. While over 60% of Americans want the troops brought home from a war a majority now views as a mistake, McCain is trusted over both Obama (by 48% to 39%) and Senator Clinton (50% to 40%). Again, McCain gets the nod despite voters' overall preference for the Democratic approach (45% to 43%).

And so it goes. On national security and taxes, McCain wins higher marks for trust. Only on government ethics and reform did he trail his Democratic counterparts.

All of which raises the question, why? When Americans routinely prefer Democratic policies to Republican ones, express record-setting disapproval for both President Bush and the direction of the country, and do not believe John McCain "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems," how is McCain even competitive in the 2008 election?

Because, as in 2000 and 2004, the Republican Party has succeeded both in portraying this race as being about character and in defining the accepted media narrative for all three of the remaining candidates.

In his 2007 book The Big Con, Jonathan Chait described how Republicans consistently win elections despite almost universal disdain for their policies among the American people. In a nutshell, Chait argues that Republicans must convert elections into contests of character because they simply can't win on issues. While their man, be it George W. Bush or John McCain, is the "authentic" guy you'd "like to have a beer with," the GOP drives the media conventional wisdom that paints the likes of Al Gore and John Kerry as effete, out-of-touch elitists whose positions change with the wind:

"Media outlets functionally affiliated with the Republican Party have been able to create news that makes its way into the nonpartisan media. It is a kind of machine that manufactures images of character.

The Republicans' seminal insight was that the random process by which small events come to wield great symbolic insight into the character of presidential candidates didn't have to be random. It was possible to prime the pump, in a way." (p.169)

(Of course, the GOP "character" strategy and a compliant media are necessary but not sufficient conditions for Republican victory. That requires a media environment in which news, opinion and entertainment merge, an "infotainment" complex in which all political debates are presented as contests between good and evil, ideological struggles with two - and only two - sides. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what we now have. For more on the transformation of politics into just another form of entertainment, see the presentation "That's Entertainment: Politics as Theater in Campaign '08.")

And so far, the Republican strategy is working. Despite John McCain's myriad flip-flops on virtually every issue from tax cuts, overturning Roe v Wade, the role of the religious right, U.S. alliances, immigration and campaign finance, a Gallup survey echoed Rasmussen's emerging "trust gap." Gallup showed that 65% of Americans believe McCain is honest and trustworthy and 66% called him a "strong and decisive leader." Despite his wife's $100 million fortune, corporate jet, 8 homes and undisclosed tax returns, John McCain succeeds with the press in branding Barack Obama an "elitist." Meanwhile, the press stays focused on the incendiary rhetoric of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright, while McCain's dangerously explosive temper (one documented by would-be running mate, Mitt Romney) is brushed aside. (To dispel any lingering doubts on the progress of the character issue, just look at the cover of this issue of Newsweek.)

Like it or not, Democrats must win both the battle of issues and the character war in order to retake the White House in 2008. To do that, they will have to attack John McCain's mythical persona directly where it is strongest. As the saying goes, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Last week, Gehrke appropriated a joke from Jay Leno, all in the name of a little ageist fun. As ABC's Jake Tapper reported, Gehrke showed the poor judgment of using his own Facebook page to pass along Leno's quip:

"You know what you call someone who digs up dirt on John McCain? An archeologist."

For its part, the Democratic National Committee disciplined Gehrke. A less than contrite Gehrke promised more attention to taste and decorum in the future, telling HotLine On Call, "from now on all the jokes I steal will be on background."

Now, I rarely agree with conservative blogger Ed Morrissey about anything. But in this case, he had it about right on Friday:

"Apparently no one is allowed a sense of humor on the campaign trail. It's not even offensive; I'd bet Senator McCain himself is probably retelling the joke on the Straight Talk Express."

Actually, McCain has been making fun of his age - and telling the same joke - for years. At the November 30, 2006 event with Republican governors in Florida, McCain offered up his now standard septuagenarian punchline:

"I am older than dirt. More scars than Frankenstein."

When asked by Reader's Digest in February 2007 "how are you going to answer the question when people say, 'I just think he's too old?'" McCain trotted out his old reliable response:

"I think I would say that I'm older than dirt. That I have more scars than Frankenstein. That I've learned a few things along the way. Anyone who has accompanied me in the two months before the last election, or while I was hiking in the Grand Canyon or doing many of the things that I do regularly, can attest to the fact that I'm capable of keeping a very rigorous schedule."

The next month, USA Today featured McCain offering the same "older than dirt" rim shot. Then during a December 2007 MTV/MySpace event broadcast live, McCain stumbled and bumbled his way through the joke to a very forgiving youth audience:

"I'm older than Frankenstein. I gotta few scars. I'm older than dirt and I've got more scars than Frankenstein...Screwed up that line."

(The venerable joke appears about two and a half minutes into the video.)

Back in 1984, then 73-year old Ronald Reagan dispensed with the age question by standing it on its head. During a debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan joked, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." But having already made himself the subject of the punchline, self-proclaimed Reagan foot soldier John McCain has guaranteed the issue of his age (50% of those surveyed in a 2007 Pew poll said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in his 70's) won't go away.

On Sunday, Barack Obama appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and marked an end to the right-wing network's 772-day "Obama Countdown Clock." Meanwhile, another clock, this time for Republican John McCain, keeps on ticking. 61 days after accepting his endorsement, the media has not asked - and John McCain has not answered - whether or not he agrees with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Armageddon.

On February 27, 2008, Senator McCain shared a stage with the End Times minister and declared, "I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support." As it turns out, John McCain not only actively sought Hagee's endorsement. In 2007, McCain addressed Hagee's organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which just happens to believe the final biblical battle against the Anti-Christ will be fought by the United States - against Iran.

During the annual CUFI conference in July 2006, John Hagee bluntly described his vision of Armageddon as foreign policy this way:

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West...a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."

On January 29, 2007, Hagee emailed a "Newflash" to CUFI members about a meeting he held that day with McCain. While noting that he did not "want to put the specifics of our conversation in this update" because "I don't want to read it in the media tomorrow," Hagee crowed about the future Republican presidential nominee:

"Senator McCain's comments concerning Israel are on target! He gets it!"

But what exactly is that McCain "gets?" During an April 2, 2006 interview by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, McCain gave a hint. Discussing Tehran's nuclear program and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric towards Israel, John McCain sounded as much preacher as president:

MR. RUSSERT: So we could have two wars at once?

SEN. McCAIN: I think we could have Armageddon. But I think that, that if we handle this right, and our European allies stand with us, and the Russians and the Chinese stand with us, sanctions might do the job. And I am confident that this administration will exhaust every effort before contemplating seriously a military option.

Russert, of course, did not follow up to clarify with McCain what he meant when he said "we could have Armageddon." Needless to say, no one in the mainstream media has, either.

Ironically, on the very day Barack Obama stopped the countdown clock over at Fox, John McCain attacked Obama over his association with a minister of his own, Jeremiah Wright. In the wake of Wright's appearance before the NAACP, McCain made him an issue, declaring "I can understand why people are upset about this" and concluding of Wright's comments, "it will probably be a political issue."

As tensions with Tehran continue to rise, the views of McCain supporter Hagee are also increasingly a vital issue in the presidential election. So the Armageddon watch continues. When will the media ask John McCain the question he must answer: does John McCain agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

Just one day after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told Americans to "get over" the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, the Supreme Court today rubber stamped an essential tactic in the all-out Republican war to suppress the turnout of minority - and likely Democratic - voters. By a 6-3 vote, the Court upheld an Indiana voter identification law purportedly designed to address what most experts deem a non-existent problem. By so doing, the Roberts Court has guaranteed that the GOP's strategy of divide, suppress and conquer is alive and well in 2008.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that while it was "fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in the GOP-controlled Indiana legislature's passage of the law, he nonetheless determined that "We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters." While Stevens left open the possibility that other state statutes might fail a neutrality test, Scalia in a separate opinion offered a much broader justification for laws he called "eminently reasonable."

The combined cases decided today, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, have their genesis in the wave of draconian new voter identification laws passed by Republican majority statehouses around the nation. As the Washington Post noted, Indiana joined Georgia, Missouri and Arizona in enacting stringent new photo ID requirements for voters, despite a complete absence of polling place fraud in these or any other state:

The state's Republican-led legislature passed the law in 2005 requiring voters to have ID, even though the state had never prosecuted a case of voter impersonation...

...Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R) said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

The state law he and the legislature came up with requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID that has an expiration date, such as a driver's license or a passport. Nondrivers can receive an identification card from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

To date, the courts have agreed with Rokita. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Indiana law by a 2-1 margin. Unsurprisingly, the Court's two Republican appointees blessed the Indiana Republican tactic. Reagan appointee Judge Richard Posner proclaimed, "It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID." But Clinton appointee Terence Evans in his dissent stated the obvious motivation and desired outcome of the Hoosier State GOP gambit:

"Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."

Which is exactly right. As I detailed just before the 2006 mid-terms, the Indiana, Georgia and other similar laws are an essential ingredient of the Republican strategy of "Divide, Suppress and Conquer" which aims to drive down the participation of potential Democratic and independent voters through unprecented redistricting, curbs on registration, onerous new ID requirements, and polling place eligibility challenges:

Not content to prevent the enfranchisement of new voters, the GOP is committed to blocking their exercise of the right to vote. At the both the state and federal level, the GOP in the name of battling fraud has put up a raft of new roadblocks and barriers to voting with burdensome voter identification requirements.

The fact that voter fraud in the United States is virtually non-existent doesn't derail Republicans in their quest to block access to the ballot box. Just this year, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission issued a report refuting the myth of fraud at polling places. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement," the report concluded, "that there is little polling place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, "dead" voters, noncitizen voting and felon voters."

The result is a host of new state laws advanced by Republicans with the transparent aim of suppressing the potential Democratic - and especially black - vote. As Perrspectives reported previously, Georgia's onerous new voter ID card program requiring voters to visit one of the state's limited number of offices, would have trimmed up to 150,000 people (primarily African-Americans and the elderly) from the rolls. (The bill's sponsor, Augusta Republican Sue Burmeister explained that when black voters in her black precincts "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls.") Versions of the Georgia law have been ruled unconstitutional twice by federal judge Harold Murphy. And while Indiana's new voter ID law and the milder version in Arizona have to date withstood judicial scrutiny, another measure in Missouri similar to that in Georgia has been blocked during the 2006 elections. In his rebuke to the state of Missouri, Judge Richard Callahan deemed the right to vote "a right and not a license."

Voter suppression has been a centerpiece of the Karl Rove Republican electoral strategy in both the states and within the Bush administration. (While supporting the new voter ID laws, the Bush administration's only prosecution for violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was against the African-American head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, Mississippi for using coercion and intimidation to prevent the white voters from going to the polls.) Voter suppression, after all, was the primary objective of Alberto Gonzales' purge of United States attorneys. As I wrote in March:

Simply put, the Bush White House planned to systematically drive down the turnout of Democrats and independents at the ballot box through an unaccountable campaign against "voter fraud"...

...While former White House counsel Harriet Miers first raised the specter of replacing all of the prosecutors in early 2005, it was President Bush himself who emphasized the importance of supposed voter fraud to Attorney General Gonzales:

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

The case of Seattle prosecutor John McKay illustrates the Republicans' preoccupation with voter fraud. Washington State Republicans, including Congressman Doc Hastings, were furious at McKay over what they claimed was his inaction on vote fraud in the wake of Democrat Christine Gregoire's 129 vote margin of victory (out of almost 3,000,000 votes cast) in the twice recounted 2004 gubernatorial campaign. On July 5, 2005, Tom McCabe of the Building Industry Association of Washington wrote to Hastings, blunting demanding, "please ask the White House to replace Mr. McKay. If you decide not to do this, let me know why."

As I noted at the time the Supreme Court heard the Indiana case, the Justices will decide whether or not the Republican Party in 2008 will succeed in its fraudulent campaign against mythical vote fraud. (It did not require a crystal ball to predict where John Roberts and Sam Alito would come down on the issue.) With the Republican Party in danger of losing the White House and yielding even larger Democratic majorities in Congress, the stakes for the GOP are high indeed (especially given the record Democratic turnout in the primaries contests thus far.) The stakes for the American people and the future of American democracy, of course, are much higher.

In Martin County, Kentucky this week, John McCain added another one his "Forgotten Places" to the growing list of places his campaign would now like to forget. With a straight face, McCain told the residents of the economically devastated region that eBay represents their economic future. And he did so by appropriating the words of Meg Whitman, who just happens to be not only McCain's national campaign co-chair, but the former CEO of eBay.

As NPR reported this morning, McCain took pains to deride President Johnson's "Great Society" and subsequent action by the federal government to alleviate poverty. Donning his compassionate conservative hat, McCain told an audience in Inez, Kentucky, "You have a right to expect us to show as much concern for helping you create more and better choices to make for yourselves as we show any other community in America." And one of those better choices, according to John McCain, is to become a seller on the auction site, eBay:

"Today, for example, 1.3 million people in the world make a living off eBay, most of those are in the United State of America."

Ebay's Whitman couldn't have put it better herself. In fact, she put it almost exactly the same on way on CBS 60 Minutes in March. As she told Lesley Stahl:

"We have about - around the world, about 1.3 million people make most, if not all, of their living selling on eBay."

That John McCain, who more than once admitted his limited knowledge of the economy, would parrot one of his most senior campaign aides is unsurprising. But that he would cite eBay as the way forward for a community where 37% live in poverty and 40% of the wage income comes from mining seems remarkably callous, even by McCain's standards.

No doubt, tens of thousands off people make a good living as eBay sellers. As eBay's Whitman told CBS' Stahl, "people can supplement their income from several thousand dollars a month to...I think our top seller on eBay grosses $20 million." But for a country slipping into recession and facing the loss of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs in a rapidly globalizing economy, a high-speed Internet connection and an eBay virtual storefront is hardly a substitute.

As American workers confront increasing insecurity due to competition in China, India and elsewhere, John McCain apparently believes they should follow in the footsteps of Whitman's legions who earn their living selling "high tech electronic equipment, maybe it's audio equipment, maybe it's Barbie dolls, maybe it's collectibles, or a certain niche of collectibles, of coins, of china." Instead building products and offering services for the world, McCain's Americans should just sell stuff to each other. And when all else fails for distressed homeowners, McCain's Americans should just join the rapidly growing ranks of those:

"Doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time."

Sadly for John McCain, a nation of struggling workers supplementing their income by selling on eBay isn't an economic plan. That's not a cure, but a symptom of the disease.

Note: The eBay community weighs in on McCain's diagnosis for the economy.

UPDATE: As it turns out, President Bush, too, sang the praises of the eBay economy last year. Note his use of the term, "part of their living."

"Today eBay is a global business that reported nearly $6 billion in net revenues last year. Hundreds of thousands of Americans now make part of their living by selling products on that website. EBay is an entrepreneurial success story that has helped thousands of Americans become entrepreneurs themselves."

While McCain has parried questions about Hagee's bigotry towards Catholic and gay Americans, he has yet to face scrutiny over his past association with the Texas Pastor. McCain, after all, didn't merely seek Hagee's endorsement. In 2007, he addressed Hagee's organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which just happens to believe the final biblical battle against the Anti-Christ will be fought by the United States - against Iran.

As I wrote back in May 2006 ("Bush, Iran and the Second Coming"), key figures in the radical religious right see Israel and end-of-times conflict with Iran as the fulfillment of biblical prophesy contained in the Book of Revelation.

But it is Hagee who is at the bleeding edge of a Christian Zionist movement seeking to accelerate the Second Coming of Christ and the final battle in Israel. Since the 1990's, Hagee and his group CUFI (Christians United for Israel) has tried without success to breed the "red heifer," the perfect calf that will signal the Second Coming." As Sarah Posner wrote in the American Prospect, "for Hagee's new project - agitating for war with Iran - his influence over Washington is less important than his influence over his audience." His book Jerusalem Countdown sold over 500,000 copies. And as Posner reported, Hagee is not alone:

Hagee calls pastors "the spiritual generals of America" an appropriate phrase given his reliance on them to rally their troops behind his message. The CUFI board of directors includes the Reverend Jerry Falwell, former Republican presidential candidate and religious right activist Gary Bauer, and George Morrison, pastor to the 8,000-member Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colorado, and chairman of the board of Promise Keepers. Rod Parsley, the Ohio televangelist who is rapidly becoming a major political figure in the Christian right, signed on as a regional director.

Just how much influence the likes of Hagee have over President Bush and his foreign policy team is open to debate. But as Max Blumenthal and Bill Moyers each reported last year, Pastor Hagee counts Washington's hardest of hard liners among his friends and CUFI allies. In October, Moyers described CUFI's annual summit in DC featuring Hagee's friends in high places:

At the recent annual CUFI summit in Washington, D.C., prominent politicians were present to pledge support for this growing movement, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, as well as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lieberman particularly sang Hagee's praise:

"He is a Ish Elokim, a man of God and those words really fit him...like Moses he's become a leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land."

CUFI considers its defining issue to be the growing challenge of radical Islam, particularly as relates to the security of Israel and the United States. CUFI is incresingly concerned by Iran and its potential nuclear threats. Hagee often alludes to Nazi Germany in order to underline what he believes to be the gravity of the situation:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are reliving history. It is 1938 all over again," Hagee explains in a 2007 speech. "Iran is Germany. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. And Ahmadinejad, just like Hitler, is talking about killing the Jews."

During the 2006 CUFI conference, Hagee made perhaps his clearest statement of Armageddon as American foreign policy:

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West...a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."

In February, Senator McCain shared a San Antonio stage with Pastor Hagee and declared "All I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support." Since then, McCain offered a feeble apology to those offended by Hagee's comments about the Catholic Church being a "false cult system" and "the Great Whore." Today, he "categorically" rejected Hagee's slurs directed at New Orleans.

But on the subject of Hagee's agitating for conflict with Iran, the American media and John McCain alike have been silent. Just two weeks ago, Hagee announced a $6 million contribution to help fund the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a policy McCain claims to oppose. And while John McCain jokes about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," the press does little to learn more McCain's association with a group dedicated to doing just that.

John Hagee's anti-Catholic and anti-gay hatred should be enough for Americans to question John McCain's character and judgment. But is on the subject of Iran and his vision of Armageddon as foreign policy where Pastor Hagee is most dangerous. And from John McCain and the mainstream media - not a word.

For this and others questions the media won't ask Mr. Straight Talk, see:

A hallmark of the Bush presidency has been the public disavowal of actions already taken in secret. In just the latest episode of Bush White House duplicity, the Washington Post revealed today that President Bush in 2004 secretly approved the expansion of existing Israeli settlements on the West Bank despite his stated policy to the contrary dating back to the start of his first term.

Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush's letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush's peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank...

...Israeli officials say they have clear guidance from Bush administration officials to continue building settlements, as long as it meets carefully negotiated criteria, even though those understandings appear to contradict U.S. policy...

..."It was clear from day one to Abbas, Rice and Bush that construction would continue in population concentrations -- the areas mentioned in Bush's 2004 letter," Olmert declared in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, published Sunday. "I say this again today: Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Ze'ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem," referring to new settlement expansion plans. "It's clear that these areas will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement."

Olmert points to a key sentence in Bush's 2004 letter as providing Israel with blessing from the United States to expand settlements in several existing sites. "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers," Bush wrote, "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

For its part, the Bush administration claims that "no such agreement exists." Given the past denunciations of Israeli settlement activity by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, those denials are not surprising.

At least as far back as 2002, President Bush insisted "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop." Speaking in Jordan on March 31 during her latest swing through the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated Bush's firm opposition to new settlement activity in the West Bank, even as the Israeli government announced plans to build hundreds of new homes in the occupied West Bank:

Asked, however, about Israel continuing to approve construction of new housing in contested territory, Rice criticized the close U.S. ally.

"Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop," Rice said.

It is worth noting tangentially that that position is shared by all three of the remaining presidential candidates, including John McCain. As the Israeli paper Haaretz reported last month:

At the end of the day it is hard to find differences in the promises being made by the candidates that have survived in the race - Clinton, McCain and Obama - regarding the peace process. All of them want involvement, all are opposed to Hamas, all are in favor of a Palestinian state and against Palestinian terrorism, all are in favor of security for Israel and against the settlement construction.

So as Abbas arrives at the White House, he will meet with a president whose private assurances to the Israelis will likely further jeopardize the Annapolis peace process he only belatedly supported. As for President Bush, his mixed signals on the expansion of Israeli settlements only serve to make his pledge to achieve a Middle East peace agreement by the end of tenure even more remote.

UPDATE: At the White House today, President Bush announced that a Palestinian "state that doesn't look like Swiss cheese" was a high priority for his administration. Meanwhile, Dana Perino began the walkback from Bush's commitment to a peace agreement before he left office, claiming, "a lot of this is up to the Palestinians and the Israelis, who committed to trying to work something out by the end of the year."

With her presidential wedding just weeks away, First Daughter Jenna Bush will once again be the subject of celebrity and political gossip alike. Just a few years ago, the bar-hopping the Bush twin seemed destined to follow in her father's footsteps as a Republican Party Animal. As it turns out, on abstinence policy and the election of John McCain - two issues near and dear to her GOP father's heart - Jenna Bush may not be much of a Republican at all.

Appearing on the Larry King show with her mother Laura to hawk their new children's book, Jenna Bush surprised host and parent alike by leaving open the possibility she might not vote for the presumptive nominee, John McCain:

KING: Do you have a favorite between the two, the two Democrats?

LAURA BUSH: My favorite is the Republican.

KING (pointing to Jenna): Yours too, I would imagine.

JENNA BUSH: I don't know.

KING: A-ha! Are you open to...

JENNA BUSH: Yeah, of course. I mean, who isn't open to learning about the candidates and I'm sure that everybody's like that.

(Armchair psychologists will no doubt speculate that Jenna Bush's reluctance to support John McCain may be the result of empathy for he predecessor, Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea, after all, was the target of a vulgar McCain joke at a 1998 Republican fundraiser. And to be sure, empathy is not a trademark Republican family value.)

This isn't the first time Jenna Bush has sided against her presidential parents. On the Bush administration's calamitous abstinence policies here and abroad, Ms. Bush took a different line in her first book, Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope. In it, she parts company with her U.S. AIDS ambassador/mother regarding abstinence. In an interview with Diane Sawyer, she added, "kids need to have education. They need to be educated in order to make the right decision for themselves."

None of the above is meant to suggest that Jenna Bush has become the embodiment of progressive values. No doubt, the enduring images of her tenure as First Daughter remain her yawning during her father's inaugural address, petulantly sticking her tongue out at the press, the underage drinking and falling down drunk in a bar. Yes, Jenna Bush may be a part-time Republican, but she'll always be daddy's little girl.

As this week's "Forgotten Places" tour of America shows, John McCain doesn't merely represent a continuation of George W. Bush's tenure in the White House. He's planning on traveling the same road to get there. Facing an American electorate which overwhelmingly rejects his policies across virtually every issue, John McCain is running as a "different kind of Republican." And that makes him no different from the Republican George W. Bush of 2000.

As McCain travels to Selma, Youngstown and other places "left behind" by Republicans past, his challenge is clear. He must run as far away as possible as possible from his party's policies, priorities and President. While President Bush's approval ratings reach new historic lows, 81% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Surveys consistently show that Americans prefer Democratic positions on almost every major issue. And with the slowing economy and jobs now topping Americans' national priorities, the landscape is not a friendly one for the GOP.

Which means John McCain and the Republican Party have to make the election about something else. In 2008 as in 2000, it will be about the "character" of the man, to prove that John McCain, as the Washington Post described it, is "a different kind of Republican."

In contrast to the GOP's tattered brand of corruption, incompetence, divisiveness and failure at home and abroad, McCain on his tour is offering the face of optimism, the facade of compassion and a hauntingly familiar pledge of unity:

"There must be no forgotten places in America, whether they have been ignored for long years by the sins of indifference and injustice, or have been left behind as the world grew smaller and more economically interdependent. In America, we have always believed that if the day was a disappointment, we would win tomorrow." (April 21, 2008)

"I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me. But I'm going to be the president of all the people and I will work for all the people and I will listen to all people -- whether they decide to vote for me or not." (April 21, 2008)

For its part, the Republican National Committee is playing its part in McCain's game of "make believe we're not Republicans." While the RNC decried the "lip-service and empty rhetoric, a la Senator Clinton and Barack Obama," its chairman Mike Duncan praised McCain's extreme makeover for the GOP, saying "It has a lot to do with campaigning in places where Republicans don't normally campaign."

If it seems like we've been here before, it's only because we have. On his way to the White House, John McCain is following in George W. Bush's footsteps from 2000.

Back in 1999, then Governor Bush famously launched his campaign on a theme of "compassionate conservatism." As CNN noted at the time, Bush's intent was to reach out to voters turned off by "how the G.O.P. of Gingrich and Trent Lott had grown too detached from Americans' lives." Governor Bush put his brand of faux compassion and ersatz unity this way:

"I am such an optimist about what is going on. But only if the prosperity is meant for everyone...I worry about the haves and the have-nots. [Mine] is a message that says nobody should be left behind."

As Fortune noted that March, Bush's self-description of "compassion conservative" had a very specific purpose:

What, exactly, will people get for their money? George W. calls himself a "compassionate conservative," which translates at the ballot box as a Republican trying to appeal to Democrats.

By the fall of 2000, the strategy of the Bush campaign against Al Gore was clear. As the New York Times described, George W. Bush turned to the same recipe John McCain would cook up eight years later:

Just before Mr. Bush started campaigning on Monday, his aides informed reporters that he would be showing up as "a different kind of Republican,'' which is what he was in the spring as well.

But this kind of Republican would now be reaching those ''real people,'' an obvious answer to Mr. Gore's references to ''working people'' and ''working families.''

Fast forward eight years and John McCain is dusting off Dubya's playbook. To become the next Republican president, he must run as anything but. Americans know how this ends. We can just think back to the 2000 election, look in the mirror and ask, "so, how did that work out for you?"

As his make-or-break Florida primary contest against John McCain approached in late January, Mitt Romney abandoned his pledge that "I'm not going to talk about the character of the people I'm running against." Instead, the Romney campaign produced a video and an accompanying memo titled, "The McCain Way: Attack Republicans - A Top 10 List." Echoing many of the episodes detailed in Sunday's WaPo piece, Mitt Romney refuted John McCain's past claims of serenity ("Do I insult anybody or fly off the handle or anything like that? No, I don't.") going back to 1999.

Romney's top 10 list includes some of McCain's greatest hits - literally. In addition to dropping the f-bomb on fellow Republican Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and John Cornyn (R-TX), McCain "repeatedly" called New Mexico's Pete Domenici an "a**hole." While the Romney list features some comparatively minor McCain blow-ups towards Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell and other leading lights of the GOP, it also claims that in 1995, John McCain "had a scuffle" with then 92-year old Strom Thurmond.

Here are the Romney campaign's top 10 episodes of "the McCain way" of rage and fury. Only the heading for each is shown below; the details and list of references are provided in the full memo, which is available at the Boston Herald:

1. Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And Screamed, "F*ck You!" At Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).


2. In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton.


3. Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) an "A**hole," Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger."


4. Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A "F*cking Jerk."


5. In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.


6. Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of the "Most Egregious Incident" Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate.


7. Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign.


8. Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney.


9. Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.


10. Sen. McCain "Publicly Abused" Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

The existence of the Romney memo certainly won't aid the former Massachusetts governor none-too-subtle lobbying for John McCain's VP slot. In late March, Romney traveled with McCain in Utah, accompanying him at campaign events and fundraisers. And just days ago, Mitt Romney took on the role of attack dog for McCain. (Comically, the half-billionaire son of auto magnate George Romney lambasted the "elitist view" of Barack Obama.)

As it turns out, Mitt Romney's vice presidential ambitions were already beginning to encounter opposition with the right-wing brain trust. Conservative godfather Paul Weyrich, who backed Romney's presidential bid, publicly came out against him earlier this month. Weyrich joined two dozen other conservative activists in signing a letter titled, "No Mitt."

As for John McCain, Romney's stinging January rebuke doesn't help matters any. At a time when Americans are increasingly focused on McCain's dangerously titantic temper, Mitt Romney's campaign poured fuel on the fire. As Americans learned during the Republican primaries, with friends like Mitt Romney, who needs enemies?

UPDATE: On a vaguely unrelated note, Mitt Romney got dissed at the Supreme Court today.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that Republican nominee John McCain has begun a quiet retreat from the centerpiece of his foreign policy vision, a so-called "League of Democracies." First unveiled in May 2007 and a highlight of his March 26 national security address, McCain despite his past angry criticism of America's European allies envisioned a league of democracies which could "act with great influence and power, both economically and militarily." Unfortunately for McCain, what thrills his neoconservative backers is what worries America's friends: the true purpose of his proposal is to "kill the UN."

In multiple speeches and in his November 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, McCain outlined a vision of the world's 100 democracies as like"-minded nations working together in the cause of peace." The organization, which would not include Russia, could act "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval." As the LA Times noted, McCain's League "could use military force as well as economic and diplomatic pressure" in Iran, Darfur and other global hot spots.

Despite Senator McCain's insistence that "this League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations," his hawkish neocon supporters haven't been shy about proclaiming otherwise. Last May, the Weekly Standard reported that many in the conservative blogosphere felt McCain's proposal didn't go far enough in defenestrating either the UN or America's supposedly feckless allies. But on March 27, Charles Krauthammer was positively ecstatic about McCain's League as representing a death blow to the United Nations:

"What I like about it, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's all about listening and joining with allies, all the kind of stuff you'd hear a John Kerry say, except that the idea here, which McCain can't say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N."

Which is precisely what so concerns foreign policy realists here at home and America's friends abroad. Despite McCain's claims to the contrary, the LA Times reports that "European officials were cautious." On senior EU official said McCain's league, with its confrontational stance towards Russia (whom McCain would expel from the G-8), "can appear as something divisive." Ford and Bush 41 national security adviser Brent Scowcroft wrote "that it was a 'bad idea' to create a new bloc in global affairs that would divide the world 'between the good and the evil.'" (The Desert Beacon has a thorough round up of other reactions.)

So this past week, John McCain began the walk back from the edge of the foreign policy abyss. While still mouthing his platitudes and catch phrases about his League (as recently as yesterday on ABC's This Week), McCain has started - quietly - to defang his proposal:

Now, however, McCain says the group would not use military force, and would be an informal organization in which democratic nations come together in different groupings, depending on their concerns.

"It does not envision military action," McCain told reporters in Dallas on April 11. He said it would "not be a formal organization; it would be a coalition of nations that shifts sometimes depending on what their priorities are."

That dramatic turnaround, however, is just one of the ironies for a man who prides himself on supposed straight talk. The very democracies McCain sees as the core of his League are the same nations he repeatedly ridiculed in the past.

Last May, for example, McCain announced that "to be a good leader, America must be a good ally," adding, "We Americans must be willing to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies." But in the run-up to and in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, John McCain had only scorn for France, Germany and the other nations of what Donald Rumsfeld deemed "Old Europe:"

"The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer: France and Germany do not speak for Europe...most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values. We thank this European majority for standing with us." (February 11, 2003)

"Compare our great power allies in the Cold War with those with whom we act today in dealing with Iraq. France has unashamedly pursued a concerted policy to dismantle the UN sanctions regime, placing its commercial interests above international law, world peace and the political ideals of Western civilization. Remember them? Liberte, egalite, fraternite." (February 13, 2003)

"They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it...Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council when the United Nations was organized." (February 18, 2003)

While John McCain's dual retreats from his past France-bashing and League of Democracies concept may create confusion about his future foreign policy and attitude towards the United Nations, one man provides a pretty good indication of where McCain's true feelings lay. John Bolton (who famously quipped that if the UN building lost its top 10 floors, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference") praised McCain for his past support. "He thought I was the type of ambassador that ought to represent the United States at the United Nations."

Ever since Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans in 1980 if they were better off now than four years ago, answering the question has been a pre-requisite for aspiring White House hopefuls. This week, Republican nominee John McCain twice tried to supply a response when asked about the eight years of the Bush economy. His changing answers of "yes" and "no" on consecutive days set a new flip-flopping record, even for John McCain.

On April 17th, Senator McCain was interviewed on Bloomberg TV by Peter Cook. Cook posed Ronald Reagan's Carter-killing question to McCain, the self-proclaimed footsoldier in the Reagan revolution. And to be sure, John McCain was proud to declare "that there's been great progress economically" during the Bush presidency.

MR. COOK: I'm going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?

SEN. MCCAIN: [...] I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.

But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America's economy are strong. We're the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world...

But within 24 hours, John McCain's answer to the "are you better off now" question underwent an extreme make-over. Facing the inescapable twin discomforts of an economy actually in recession and the downside of cozying up to George W. Bush, McCain reversed course in another Bloomberg TV appearance, this time with Al Hunt. As Bloomberg reported Friday, April 18:

John McCain distanced himself from President George W. Bush's economic policies, saying Americans are "hurting badly" and haven't fared well under this administration.

"Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago," McCain said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," to be aired today.

In his defense, John McCain's academic record suggests he's never been a very good test taker. (McCain, after all, finished fifth from the bottom in a U.S. Naval Academy class of 899.) So the next time John McCain is asked, "are the American people better now than eight years ago when George W. Bush came to office?" the answer is no:

Oil and gas prices are at record levels, having tripled during President Bush's tenure. The nation is gripped by the twin crises of the housing market and the financial system. The unemployment rate is now higher than when Bush took office. The dollar is at all time lows versus the yen, the euro and other currencies. Most importantly, recent studies show the Bush economic expansion was the first since World War II in which median family income actually declined.

Not exactly John McCain's "great progress economically."

In the wake of Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous' abominable performance in the ABC Democratic debate Wednesday, I created a list of 10 debate questions John McCain will never be asked. (The Real McCain author Cliff Schecter subsequently featured my list over at The Huffington Post, AmericaBlog and Crooks and Liars.)

Now, as it turns out, this Sunday's guest on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous is none other than Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

Here, then, are 10 more questions John McCain will never be asked:

11. Don't your recent comments about U.S. casualties in Iraq, the foreclosure crisis and the deepening recession show that you are insensitive to the concerns of the American people?
The American people want a president who understands the challenges they and their families face. But many point to your record of callousness when it comes to the fighting in Iraq and the slowing American economy. On April 1, 2007, while escorted by U.S. troops and wearing a bulletproof vest, you said that that there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." Last month, you claimed that Iraq is no more dangerous than most American cities when you said, "There's problems in America with safe neighborhoods as we well know." As the foreclosure crisis worsened in March, you said, "some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford" and that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly." And just this week, you brushed off Americans' concerns over the housing crisis, rising unemployment, record energy prices and a deepening recession by proclaiming, "A lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological." Why shouldn't Americans conclude that you are too callous, too unconcerned and too out-of-touch to be their President?

12. Given your support for virtually the entire Bush foreign and domestic agenda, aren't the American people correct in viewing a John McCain victory in November as a third term for George W. Bush?
Two weeks ago, you told the American people "I'm not running on the Bush presidency." But on almost every issue, your positions are identical to those of President Bush. You reversed course to support making permanent the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed. Like President Bush, you opposed the expansion of the SCHIP program for children's health care, while similarly calling for the wildly unpopular privatization of Social Security. You've called for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights while reaffirming your support for conservative Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. You and the President are in lockstep when its comes to Iran and Iraq, so much so that when you were told President Bush wants to stay in Iraq for 50 years, you said, "Make it a hundred." Isn't it fair for Americans to ask where Bush ends and you begin? Don't those who call you "John McSame" have grounds for doing so? When over 80% of the American people think the country is on the wrong track, isn't it fair for the American people to fear that President John McCain means a third term for George W. Bush?

13. You've called yourself a "deficit hawk." But with cost estimates for your tax plan topping $2 trillion, isn't your claim of fiscal discipline simply unbelievable?
This week, you told NBC's Andrea Mitchell, "I'm a deficit hawk." Yet James Kvaal and Robert Gordon at the Center for American Progress documented that your tax plan "is enormously expensive, costing more than $2 trillion over the next decade and essentially doubling the Bush tax cuts." A 2005 CBO study by your current economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin showed that ".lower tax rates wouldn't come close to paying for themselves." And just this week, you abandoned a pledge you made just two month ago during the Wisconsin primary to balance the federal budget by the end of your first term. Why shouldn't we view your claim to be a deficit hawk as a joke? Isn't the McCain tax plan reckless? Shouldn't the American people be worried when you say "I disagree with the experts?"

14. Don't you owe Barack Obama an apology for attacking as "confused leadership" his proposal for unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, a strategy which is now the policy of the Bush administration?
On August 1, 2007, Barack Obama announced that as President, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." On February 19th, you attacked – and misrepresented - his position during a primary night victory speech by asking "will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan?" As it turns out, President Bush endorsed the use of unilateral American strikes against Al Qaeda targets within Pakistan, including the January 29 covert Predator drone attack that killed Al Qaeda leader Abu Laith Al-Libi. Do you disagree with President Bush's new policy of attacking Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan without the permission of the government in Islamabad? If not, don't you owe Barack Obama an apology?

15. Have you forgiven George W. Bush for slandering you and your family during the 2000 campaign? If so, why?
It is well known that during the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush's operatives slandered you and your family, including the use of push polls that implied you were anti-Catholic, your wife Cindy a drug addict, and that you had fathered an illegitimate black child with a prostitute. Time magazine reported that during a commercial break in a February 2000 debate in South Carolina, "Bush grasped McCain's hands and made a sugary plea for less acrimony in their campaign." You are said to have replied, "Don't give me that shit. And take your hands off me." But in accepting his endorsement on March 5, 2008, you described George W. Bush as a man for whom you now "have a great admiration, respect and affection." Have you forgiven George W. Bush for slandering you and your family during the 2000 campaign? If so, why? Should Americans assume your pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination is more important to you than your family's honor?

16. Do you really believe that there's been "great progress economically" during the presidency of George W. Bush?
On April 17, you said of the Bush years, "you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time" and that "the fundamentals of America's economy are strong." But oil and gas prices are at record levels, having tripled during President Bush's tenure. The nation is gripped by the twin crises of the housing market and the financial system. The unemployment rate is now higher than when Bush took office. The dollar is at all time lows versus the yen, the euro and other currencies. Most importantly, recent studies show the Bush economic expansion was the first since World War II in which median family income actually declined. Do you really believe that Americans' anxiety over the economy and their standards of living is, as you put in this week, "psychological?" Do you really believe that there's been "great progress economically" during the presidency of George W. Bush?

17. Given that you've reversed yourself on so many long-held positions, why shouldn't the American people view you as an opportunistic flip-flopper?
You have something of a reputation as a political maverick. Yet in your 2008 quest for the White House, you repeatedly reversed long-held positions and compromised core principles to seemingly curry favor with both the leading lights of the conservative movement and right-wing Republican primary voters. You've changed your positions on the Bush tax cuts, Jerry Falwell and the Christian right, immigration reform, overturning Roe v. Wade, whether Justice Samuel Alito is a model for the Supreme Court, France-bashing, just to name a few. What happened to the "courage of our convictions?" Did you read your own book, Why Courage Matters? After what happened to John Kerry in 2004, why shouldn't the American people view you as an opportunistic flip-flopper?

18. Aren't you being a hypocrite for refusing to release you wife Cindy's tax returns?
For over 30 years, presidential candidates have made their tax returns available to the American people. In 2004, Theresa Heinz Kerry, whose personal fortune was said to top $5 billion, eventually released the two front pages of her personal 1040 form after enduring withering criticism from RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and the right-wing mouthpieces like the National Review. Yet you refuse to release the tax returns of your wife Cindy, the heiress to a beer distribution company who reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your campaign claims "Cindy McCain will not release her tax returns to protect the privacy of her four children; details of their wealth are included in her filing." Since the Clintons released their joint returns, why won't you release your wife's? Isn't it fair for the American people to assume that you are hiding something? Isn't it, as Ed Gillespie said of Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2004, "a legitimate question?"

19. Aren't you being a hypocrite on campaign finance reform? Didn't you just violate the very campaign finance law you helped write by exceeding the spending cap for a publicly financed primary election?
You attacked Barack Obama for not pledging to follow the public finance system in a ge