Eli

Well, it looks like there are a couple of pro-McCain narratives brewing, one obvious, one maybe not-quite-as-obvious. The obvious one is that yeah, Senator McCain has a temper, but that's actually a good thing. John McCain is simply a very passionate man, who cannot contain his righteous fury at waste, corruption, and bad behavior. You know, like when his wife makes comments about his hair, or a fellow Congressman takes exception to being called "boy," that sort of thing.

Yesterday, a very frustrated Cenk Uygur asked whether the American media was getting played by the Republican party, or whether they are in on the game. Well, let's look at where a couple of the more repellent questions in Wednesday's debate came from:

Well, that was really, really horrible. Charlie Gibson and Mr. Snuffalupagus fed Clinton and Obama nothing but gotcha questions. Torture never came up, China never came up, unchecked executive power never came up, and it was 50+ minutes in before they asked any questions that could be considered remotely substantive or issues-based.

Well, it took 50+ minutes, but Gibson and Snuffalupagus finally started asking questions about substantive topics. Even if the questions themselves are horrible gotchas. But at least Clinton and Obama are getting to talk about issues.
Still waiting for a torture question or a China question.

More debatey goodness. For those keeping score at home, Bittergate was Question #2.

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com Yes, I'm sure I've said that before, but this time it's totally true, I mean it. The winner of this debate will surely be the winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, which, as we all know, is THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIMARY EVAR OMG!!1!!1! Things to watch for:Will Charlie Gibson ask Clinton and Obama for their thoughts on Dubya's admission that he authorized torture?

One of the characteristics of Republicans in general, and the Bush administration in general, is their elevation of loyalty above all other considerations.  It trumps competence, it trumps the rule of law, it trumps morality and basic human decency.  The president just admitted to authorizing torture, and Republicans are all perfectly okay with it.

I'm not a bit surprised that Dubya knew and approved of his unprincipled principals' detailed discussions of how to "interrogate" supposed terrorist suspects, but I am surprised that he just admitted to okaying the war crimes they orchestrated. It's like he's finally concluded that he's completely untouchable, that there is nothing he can say or do that will put impeachment back on Nancy Pelosi's squeaky-clean table.

So here's my question which I would like to see the media ask McCain, Bush, and any other Republicans who just happen to accidentally stumble in front of their cameras and tape recorders: What, exactly, would have to happen for you to declare that Iraq is a lost cause, or simply not worth the loss of money and lives?

This is perhaps stating the obvious, but I want to come out and say it explicitly: Republicans hate the law. The Yoo "Torture Memo" is just the latest and most dramatic example of the Bush administration's adversarial relationship with the law and the Constitution. Republicans don't see the law as the foundation of a healthy nation to be upheld and protected, they see it as an obstacle to be evaded, ignored, twisted, and exploited.