“Any blonde telecomm lobbyists here?”

Since last Thursday’s revelations that Saint John McCain is a bigger sinner than his corporate-sponsored halo would suggest, he has been hitting one false note after another. Here’s this afternoon’s McCainpropism, courtesy of the Associated Press:

ROCKY RIVER, Ohio – John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can’t, "then I lose. I lose," the Republican said.

He quickly backed off that remark.

"Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security."

"If I may, I’d like to retract ‘I’ll lose.’ But I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge," McCain added. "Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree."

…

McCain recalled reading a USA Today poll that he said showed most people believe the troop-increase strategy is succeeding, and said: "Now, still the majority of Americans want out of Iraq. And, I understand that, too. So do I."

But what about that one hundred years you happily predicted we’d spend pounding sand in Tikrit, John? As always, it is the Democrats’ fault for misinterpreting what the Straight Talking Maverick™ meant when he said that we’d be in Iraq for the next one hundred years:

McCain accused Democrats of distorting that comment and sought to explain. "The war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us," he said. Like after other wars, he said, the United States then will decide "what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis."

So . . . our soldiers will be security force piñatas for the Iraqi insurgents for another hundred years then? Did I interpret that correctly?

Y’know, I’m just a lowly wiseass, foul-mouthed, opinionated blogger, but it seems to me that it’s this kind of equivocating . . . dare I say "flipflopping" . . . that is getting you into so much trouble these days, Panderbear. If you want to maintain that "straight talking" label, you need to, well, talk straight. Say what you mean and mean what you say, right?

Instead, you draft campaign finance reform legislation, but have a hard time turning down those cushy corporate jets and telecomm lobbyist friends. You claim that you’ve never abused your position in the Senate for anyone’s personal gain, except for that little deal you pushed through for your wife’s Budweiser concession at the Arizona Cardinals Stadium.

You have "Straight Talk Express" painted on the side of your bus, but that doesn’t keep you from talking out of both sides of your mouth.