Haha!  Your friend's not only fast but cool.  Talk about a reclaim! 

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

If Sen. Obama or Biden EVER made any of the disrespectful, snide, aggressive, or condescending remarks such as those that the McCain/Palin team seem completely unbashed to spew (though Obama/Biden never would, as they have too much class, poise and thank GOD, restraint!) you can bet your dwindling dollars 'friends', that it would be made out to be a huge issue. Also, I think McCain needs to choose who he wants to be...is he really going to go the distance as a name calling, finger pointing bully (which obviously isn't working out for him...) or will he assume the role of the 'quiet' guy with oodles of experience, who has all the great answers? He showed both personas last night, and to me, came out looking like a train wreck.....Maverick my ass! Heaven help us if it's McCain who is standing next to the imaginary red panic button in the White House, in the midst of a national crises, when he's having a bad day.

You bring up a good point, Z, but the "that one" comment was mild, maybe a brain glitch.  McCain's said harsher things to at least one family member we know of, and he has a reputation for not being able to control his temper, not exactly a good leadership quality.  But as to how he talks to his family, since McCain has called his wife a c*nt in front of reporters, imagine what he must say in private. So, we shouldn't be surprised that he's openly disrespectful to an opponent.  

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.  The Rolling Stone pummels McCain, tackles his mythology.

Or worse...people McCain "perceives" to be enemies.

Absolutely.  If that had happened, Carly Fiorina and Nancy Pfotenhauer would have been all over TV immediately screaming about how horribly sexist and offensive and disrespectful it was.

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia

Where referring to this one in this manner is anything but negative.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

(CBS) The following is Sen. John McCain's letter to to Sen. Barack Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

Your thoughts on this are very insightful and plausible.  Thank you for sharing them with us.

to find support for one's existing beliefs. Especially with the Internet being such a big place. More information on Fred Siegel (senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation) linked to in the comment above: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/siegel.htm

Not sure how this particular person's statements of opinions counts as "the facts," but hopefully most people here--regardless of their political beliefs--are able to think for themselves. 

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

But there are a lot of people who profess faith in Christ who refer to the Sermon on the Mount as a radical text:

Worth and Worth, Chapter 3

Cladys Hunt: A Radical Way of Being God's people

Jeff Berger, on radical honesty

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Obama's (so-called) Christian faith is doubtful at best. No genuine Christian would ever publicly mock The Sermon on the Mount; saying (in his own words) that it is so radical that it's doubtful that our own defence dept. could survive its application. This does not come out of the mouth of a Christian!

He wasn't mocking the Sermon on the Mount. The statement reflects his deeply held beliefs about the teachings of Jesus. And does not stand alone. Similar words have come out of the mouth of thousands of Christians. I am one of those Christians.

I highly recommend that you check out http://www.sojo.net/

 Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind

the governmetns...he was a radical and was probably considered very dangerous and extreme by many who did not share his ideas OR who were those he opposed. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com

//For the people of the day, Christ's sermon was radical.  He was challenging the power structure of the day and suggesting that the poor, downtrodden, the least of us, would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  He was lauding the peacemakers, those that would create peace where conflict existed.//

This is simply not true!

No way whatsoever was Christ challenging the power structure of the day! What he challenged was the religious doctrine of the scribes and the pharisees. At the time of Christ the Romans were the ruling power and he had no interest whatsoever in opposing them. If you recall, when asked by one of the pharisees (in an attempt to trap him into criticizing the ruling power) who should we give our allegiance to (or words to that affect) he asked for a coin. When handed one he asked; "Who's image is on this coin", When told it was Caesars he said; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's". He had no interest whatsoever of challenging the ruling power...as you suggest.

As for your interpretation of the 8th beatitude; Blessed be the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. This refers to the virtue of a peaceful heart filled with, not only the love of God, but love of all mankind...a heart devoid of hate, pride, envy or greed. These beatitudes are intended to guide our soul back to God by way of virtue.

Anyone who wishes to turn these into some kind of political statement to suit their own purpose is far removed from the spiritual wisdom they contain. This doesn't surprise me when it comes to Jeremiah Wright (Obama's spiritual mentor for the past 20 yrs...now in the closet) who is blind to the spiritual message of the beatitudes by a heart full of hatred.

They say, if you want to know the character of a man, take a look at his friends.