Inconvenient Truths

Liberals are "outraged" and "shocked" that Sen,. John McCain said about the Exotic Messiah that he “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” Why should McCain apologize for speaking the truth?
Not only is this statement true of the Anointed One, it is true of the entire Liberal establishment in this country. It is simply unacceptable to them that America can achieve any kind of positive result by war - never mind victory - in any way, shape or form. It goes against their whole ideological make-up. It is the underlying reason they opposed the Iraq war in the 1st place (no matter what the provocation. Now they pretend to support the Afghan war as a contrast to Iraq and to show how "serious" they are about "justice" for 9/11. It is almost a surety that they will also turn against Afghanistan and the whole idea of retribution against Al Qaida as soon as they "successfully" scuttle the Iraq war.

Pandering or Moving?

It has been a constant theme in the mainstream (i.e. Liberal) media since at least the 1980's: Republicans pander, while Democrats "move to the center". Liberals cannot accept that anyone (certainly not Republican office seekers) could be sincere about the "right wing" positions they hold, be it pro-life; nationalist-patriotic; pro-religion; against gay marriage; whatever. When Republicans speak on these issues, they are"pandering" to their base constituencies.

Democrats, of course, never pander; they are sincere, courageous, advocates of their positions, even when they speak out in favor of (no matter how gingerly) positions that are generally considered to be conservative. At best (sometimes said with a note of disdain or exasperation) they are "moving to the center", which is considered no sin if it mollifies the great unwashed and gets the Democrat elected so he can do "progressive" things. Nothing about cynicism or (heaven forbid) pandering.

When Republicans advocate any "unacceptable" (i.e. non-Liberal) position, they are "exploiting wedge issues", another great sin, since some ideas are simply unacceptable in polite, Liberal, circles. Liberals cannot conceive the idea that anyone could possibly hold such positions and still be sincere. Furthermore, "wedge issues" are things that are considered beyond discussion, whether they are right or wrong. At a minimum, they are considered "divisive" - never mind that that is exactly what elections are supposed to be about, issues that "divide" the electorate. By definition, any issue is considered divisive if it falls outside the Liberal consensus.

These attitudes in the media are so constant, that they are never questioned or open to discussion. All this is doubled in spades (no pun intended) when it comes to the Anointed One. A current example: When Bush spoke of faith-based initiatives, he was pandering to the Religious Right; when Obama advocates continuing and expanding such initiatives he, of course, is only drawing on his background as an "advocate" with a long history of association with the "Black" church (Rev. Wright, where are you?) and its community work.

As Sen. Dole asked once upon a time: "Where is the outrage?"